The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6233, AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2012” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H5644-H5649 on Aug. 2, 2012.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6233, AGRICULTURAL DISASTER
ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2012
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 752 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 752
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6233) to make supplemental agricultural disaster assistance available for fiscal year 2012 with the costs of such assistance offset by changes to certain conservation programs, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 752 is a closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 6233, the Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2012.
As a lifelong farmer myself, including operating a nursery and being a beekeeper, I can certainly empathize with being vulnerable to Mother Nature and the plight caused by unpredictable weather.
Without a doubt, the good Lord has blessed this country with an abundance of natural gifts, and I am very thankful for America's farmers, who work to utilize and protect these blessings to help feed our country and others throughout the world. Unfortunately, the drought devastating so much of the United States this year has yielded a tremendous amount of financial hardships not only for these farmers but also for those throughout the rest of the economy that depend on their products.
Mr. Speaker, it's important to remember that it is not just farmers affected by this drought. The consequences of this disaster impact all Americans, from those living in the biggest cities to those living in the most remote areas of this country. Not only does drought aggravate the risk of wildfires that have raged throughout the West, but it compromises our crops, which are used to feed our livestock and even fuel our cars.
{time} 1040
The effects will last long after rain brings much-needed relief. With the price of corn jumping 50 percent since June, grocery costs continue to climb. The Department of Agriculture now estimates food prices could climb between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent this year, and between 3 percent and 4 percent next year.
Also of consequence to price conscious energy consumers is how the 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 just fine. Apparently, the two highest ranking Democrats in the country are trying to convince themselves of an alternative reality where unemployment would no longer be a problem if only more Americans worked for the government. Fortunately, we still have a lot of Americans working out there trying to produce food for all of us.
{time} 1050
I recognize there are many government workers, teachers, police officers, firefighters, who provide critical services to this country. But to suggest that the unemployment problem in this country can be solved by continuing an unending, demonstrably failed liberal spending spree ignores the reality that it's the private sector that generates the wealth which provides revenue for government to work through an increasing seizure of personal earnings, as was displayed on the floor yesterday.
Liberal elites would have us all believe that the only way to promote job growth is through a perpetual expansion of special handouts and concessions to government employee unions and politically favored industries.
Less we forget that a centrally planned government-sponsored green jobs revolution was the only solution for unemployment worries during the height of the recent recession, I want to remind my colleague of the Solyndra loans and the many loans in that area that were made that have created crony capitalism in our country. The liberal Democrats promised to solve these problems by ramming through a $1 trillion stimulus bill, financed exclusively by our posterity through deficit spending and quickly shifted their focus on other crises vulnerable to exploitation, such as a new $800 billion energy tax that sought to crush millions of jobs while sending hundreds of billions overseas as well as the now-infamous government takeover of health care, otherwise known as ObamaCare.
We're actually fortunate for these striking statements which reveal a peek into the mystifying mindset of liberal elites who apparently believe that government dependence is a necessary condition for economic health.
Well, here's a news flash for the liberals who remain stubbornly unaware of the hardships that continue to grip Americans: the results are in, and everyone else knows that Big Government cannot simply prescribe economic prosperity and have it be so.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I listened very carefully to the gentlelady from North Carolina. I didn't hear her defend this bovine bailout that the Republicans are proposing here today. Now, I'm going to take a few minutes and address some of the mischaracterizations of the President of the United States that were in some of those comments, but then I do want to bring it back to this Big Government bovine bailout that the Republicans are proposing here before us today.
Look, the President understands and I understand, as somebody who started several businesses before I got here--I created several hundred jobs--that of course I didn't do it alone. If we didn't have roads so that employees could get to work, I wouldn't have been able to start a company. I wouldn't have been able to have any employees to get to work. If we didn't have schools that help prepare programmers and technicians to work technology companies--tech companies that I started that hired programmers, that were good-paying jobs--I wouldn't have been able to start a company. If we didn't have investors and shareholders and the right level of securities regulation to prevent fraud and to give them the confidence to invest in the companies that I started, we wouldn't have capital formation and venture capital flowing to the companies that needed it.
If we didn't have the rule of law, if we didn't fund our courts, if we didn't invest in basic research, if the government hadn't provided the funding to start the Internet, I wouldn't have been able to start a single company.
And most of my friends who are entrepreneurs, who have started companies, who are corporate executives agree. Yes, the entrepreneur is critical. And the President's Jobs Council recognizes that, and this President has been more friendly to entrepreneurship and to business than any President in my lifetime, working to ensure that small businesses have the opportunity to succeed and grow and create jobs in the private sector.
But without that basic infrastructure, we have to ask ourselves what separates the United States of America from a country like Somalia or even a centrally planned country like North Korea. A lot separates us. But a big part of that is this collaboration of a public sector role that enables entrepreneurship, enables success in the private sector, enables people to create fortunes, enables people to create jobs. That's the proper role of government.
Government doesn't stand in the way of job creation. The government's policy framework, courts people can trust, roads for people to get to work, good public schools, good health care--that's what enables success. As somebody who reached some degree of success in the private sector before I got here, I agree completely with President Obama that I couldn't have achieved that degree of success without the public infrastructure that played a role in allowing me and so many other entrepreneurs to succeed.
Now, moving back to the topic, the topic of the bovine bailout that the Republicans have proposed here today. The gentlelady from North Carolina said, We have no control over climate, basically. That was the quote that she just said. Well, the vast majority of scientific consensus and agreement would indicate otherwise.
We don't control weather. But climate is different than weather. And, yes, humans are contributing to climate change through carbon emissions and emissions of other greenhouse gases. The global climate has warmed. The average climate in Colorado now is two to three degrees warmer than it was a century ago, and it continues to accelerate. Now, that doesn't cause a drought or a flood in any one particular year, but it causes an increased incidence of severe weather patterns that cost us all money, which is why we're even talking about a bovine bailout here today.
Now, look, I wish this had come to the floor under an open process. I would have offered an amendment just to talk about it to say, why don't you bail out rooftop restaurants, rooftop terraces?
Look, we're talking about the role of the government, the role of the private sector. I find it ironic and to the point of being bizarre--
almost like I'm in an alternative universe--that in the very same remarks that the gentlelady from North Carolina railed against a President who dares to say that the public sector has a role in creating the landscape for private businesses to succeed, at the same time, she is advocating for a bovine bailout of a particular industry.
Now why this particular industry? Why not rooftop terraces? Why not solar, if it's too cloudy? Why not wind, if it's not windy enough? Many, many, many businesses are affected by weather. Retail stores are affected when it snows too much. Should they be coming to Washington, clamoring for a bailout?
Look, both sides respect the role of the private sector. And when you have government preempting the private sector by picking out a particular industry and elevating it above all others, by giving it government subsidies and a big bailout, you are upsetting the very market forces that the gentlelady from North Carolina espoused support of in another context.
This bill today gives us a terrible choice between drought assistance and conservation. Now, both might be worthy; but disproportionate cuts to conservation programs that are used to fund this bill undermine the continued success of conservation programs that have bipartisan support and are helping farmers mitigate the impact of climate change in their businesses.
There are so many other issues of relevance for farmers that this House could be taking up. Why aren't we talking about the estate tax, which affects small farmers across this country? If we don't act by December 31, the estate tax will go to a 55 percent tax above $1 million in assets, forcing many small farmers out of business and preventing them from being passed down from one generation to the next.
Are we going to leave it until the last minute? Is that a plan for the lame duck session? Are the Republicans scared to take on the estate tax before the election?
I would advocate that we get down to work and start addressing issues that actually affect farmers. We should be voting to provide for the success of American agriculture, opening new markets, investing in basic research, helping to ensure that families have access to healthy food and nutrition.
We need to make sure that farmers' and ranchers' needs are addressed. And if we don't address the fundamental drivers of climate change, we're only going to be faced with more and more difficulties, more and more requests for bailouts. It may be cows this time. It may be chickens next time. It may be corn the next time. There are always going to be folks here in Washington, hat in hand, coming to Republicans, saying, Give us a Big Government solution.
And the question will come to this Congress, Are we going to do something about the underlying problem? And whether that approach is through a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax or incentives for renewables, what are we going to do to prevent farmers in this country from being driven out of business? This bill does nothing.
Sure, you can hand them government money. You can hand them taxpayer money, if that's the lack of regard that you have for taxpayer money, you want to hand it out to whoever comes to town and begs for it. Go right ahead. And I have some rooftop terrace restaurant owners in my district. Give them some while you are at it.
{time} 1100
That's not a solution. That's what got us into this budget deficit. That's what got us into this hole. Let's address the underlying issue of climate change in a scientific manner, have the real political discussions that are necessary to negotiate a bipartisan solution that reduces our carbon emissions, reduces the impact of climate change on American farmers, reduces the incidence and severity of droughts across the United States of America, and also be the global leaders that we need to be on this critical issue.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague if he has any more speakers or if he is ready to close.
Mr. POLIS. I am the only remaining speaker, and I am prepared to close.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I will close after the gentleman closes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment which proposes that Congress will not adjourn until the President signs middle class tax cuts into law.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. This will give us the opportunity to renew middle class tax cuts. When we talk about job creation, when we talk about growing our economy, the need to make sure that we don't increase taxes on the middle class during a recess is something economists from both sides of the aisle agree on, something Democrats agree on. I hope Republicans agree, too, that we shouldn't raise taxes on at least 98 percent of Americans.
Then let's have the discussion about the other 2 percent. But let's agree on what we agree on. Let's not raise taxes on 98 percent of American families before Congress goes on break. Before the Republicans send us all home to enjoy our summers, let's do something about jobs. Let's do something about the economy, and let's demand that we give middle class families across America the surety and the security to know that they're not going to need to pay an additional $1,000 a year in taxes, an additional $2,000 a year in taxes.
I think it is critical, and I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can bring forward this critical amendment to provide the certainty that America needs to grow our economy and create jobs.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleague across the aisle, I don't understand why our friends can't take yes for an answer. We want to extend the tax cuts that were begun over 10 years ago to everyone in this country. We agree with that, and that's what we're doing. We don't want to raise taxes on anyone.
I would also like to commend to my colleague across the aisle, who represents a group of people who only ask for bipartisan cooperation when they're in the minority, a book by Australian geologist Ian Plimer who wrote a book called ``Heaven and Earth,'' which I think really does do a scientific presentation of what is happening in terms of climate change.
Last, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that my colleague is trying to deal with a chicken and egg issue relative to infrastructure and how does infrastructure get funded. He wants to say that this all comes from the benevolent government, but he conveniently leaves out the fact that the government doesn't create wealth. All our government does is spend wealth, and in many cases waste the fruits of hardworking Americans by doing things often very inefficiently. Public infrastructure is funded by the taxes that we take away from hardworking Americans.
Entrepreneurs predated the government in our country. And we all know that the Constitution was written to try to establish a limited government in our country so that the entrepreneurial spirit could thrive, as it has in most cases. My colleague talks about the government enabling entrepreneurs. Excuse me, I don't believe the government does a lot to enable the private sector. What most people in the private sector will tell you is just get the government out of my way. Get the foot of the government off my neck, and I will do just fine.
I know my colleague has been in the private sector and created a lot of wealth for himself, and I applaud him for doing that. But most of the people that I know, Mr. Speaker, who are in the private sector would simply say the government isn't enabling me at all. Leave me alone, and I'll do just fine.
Mr. Speaker, talk about taking the President's words out of context, as I think my colleague knows, when you put the President's words in context, they are even more disturbing than outside of context. I do believe that our President does believe that the government is the solution, and most of us think the government is the problem. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 752 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new section:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration of the resolution
(H. Res. 746) prohibiting the consideration of a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die unless a law is enacted to provide for the extension of certain expired or expiring tax provisions that apply to middle-income taxpayers if called up by Representative Slaughter of New York or her designee. All points of order against the resolution and against its consideration are waived. (The information contained herein was provided by the Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 110th and 111th Congresses.)
THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 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:
YEAS--236
AdamsAderholtAlexanderAmashAmodeiAustriaBachmannBachusBarlettaBartlettBarton (TX)Bass (NH)BenishekBergBiggertBilbrayBilirakisBishop (UT)BlackburnBonnerBono MackBoustanyBrady (TX)BrooksBroun (GA)BuchananBucshonBuerkleBurgessCalvertCampCampbellCansecoCantorCapitoCarterCassidyChabotChaffetzCobleCoffman (CO)ColeConawayCravaackCrawfordCrenshawCulbersonDenhamDentDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDoldDreierDuffyDuncan (SC)Duncan (TN)EllmersEmersonFarentholdFincherFitzpatrickFlakeFlemingFloresForbesFortenberryFoxxFranks (AZ)FrelinghuysenGalleglyGardnerGarrettGerlachGibbsGibsonGingrey (GA)GohmertGoodlatteGosarGowdyGrangerGraves (GA)Griffin (AR)Griffith (VA)GrimmGuintaGuthrieHallHannaHarperHarrisHartzlerHastings (WA)HayworthHeckHensarlingHergerHerrera BeutlerHuelskampHuizenga (MI)HultgrenHunterHurtIssaJenkinsJohnson (IL)Johnson (OH)Johnson, SamJonesJordanKellyKing (IA)King (NY)KingstonKinzinger (IL)KlineLabradorLambornLanceLandryLankfordLathamLaTouretteLattaLewis (CA)LoBiondoLongLucasLuetkemeyerLummisLungren, Daniel E.MackManzulloMarchantMarinoMathesonMcCarthy (CA)McCaulMcClintockMcHenryMcIntyreMcKeonMcKinleyMcMorris RodgersMeehanMicaMiller (FL)Miller (MI)Miller, GaryMulvaneyMurphy (PA)MyrickNeugebauerNoemNugentNunesNunneleeOlsonPalazzoPaulPaulsenPearcePencePetriPittsPlattsPoe (TX)PompeoPoseyPrice (GA)QuayleReedRehbergReichertRenacciRibbleRigellRiveraRobyRoe (TN)Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRokitaRooneyRos-LehtinenRoskamRoss (FL)RoyceRunyanRyan (WI)ScaliseSchillingSchmidtSchockSchweikertScott (SC)Scott, AustinSensenbrennerSessionsShimkusShulerShusterSimpsonSmith (NE)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SoutherlandStearnsStiversStutzmanSullivanTerryThompson (PA)ThornberryTiberiTiptonTurner (NY)Turner (OH)UptonWalbergWaldenWalsh (IL)WebsterWestWestmorelandWhitfieldWilson (SC)WittmanWolfWomackWoodallYoung (AK)Young (FL)Young (IN)
NAYS--182
AckermanAltmireAndrewsBacaBaldwinBarberBarrowBass (CA)BecerraBerkleyBermanBishop (GA)Bishop (NY)BlumenauerBonamiciBorenBoswellBrady (PA)Braley (IA)Brown (FL)ButterfieldCappsCapuanoCarnahanCarneyCarson (IN)Castor (FL)ChandlerChuCicillineClarke (MI)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnConnolly (VA)ConyersCooperCostaCourtneyCritzCrowleyCuellarCummingsDavis (CA)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDeLauroDeutchDicksDingellDoggettDonnelly (IN)DoyleEdwardsEllisonEngelEshooFarrFattahFilnerFrank (MA)FudgeGaramendiGonzalezGreen, AlGreen, GeneGrijalvaGutierrezHahnHanabusaHastings (FL)HeinrichHigginsHimesHincheyHinojosaHironoHochulHoldenHoltHondaHoyerIsraelJohnson, E. B.KapturKeatingKildeeKindKissellKucinichLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)Lee (CA)LevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLoebsackLofgren, ZoeLoweyLujanLynchMaloneyMarkeyMatsuiMcCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcNerneyMeeksMichaudMiller (NC)Miller, GeorgeMooreMoranMurphy (CT)NadlerNapolitanoNealOlverOwensPallonePascrellPastor (AZ)PelosiPerlmutterPetersPetersonPingree (ME)PolisPrice (NC)QuigleyRahallRangelReyesRichardsonRichmondRoss (AR)Rothman (NJ)Roybal-AllardRuppersbergerRushRyan (OH)Sanchez, Linda T.Sanchez, LorettaSarbanesSchakowskySchiffSchraderSchwartzScott (VA)Scott, DavidSerranoSewellShermanSiresSlaughterSmith (WA)SpeierStarkSuttonThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TierneyTonkoTownsTsongasVan HollenVelazquezViscloskyWalz (MN)Wasserman SchultzWatersWattWaxmanWelchWilson (FL)WoolseyYarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
AkinBlackBurton (IN)CardozaCohenCostelloFleischmannGraves (MO)Jackson (IL)Jackson Lee (TX)Johnson (GA)Yoder
{time} 1132
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California and Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. PETRI changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235, noes 181, not voting 14, as follows:
AYES--235
AdamsAderholtAlexanderAmashAmodeiAustriaBachmannBachusBarlettaBartlettBarton (TX)Bass (NH)BenishekBergBiggertBilbrayBilirakisBishop (UT)BlackburnBonnerBono MackBoustanyBrady (TX)BrooksBroun (GA)BuchananBucshonBuerkleBurgessCalvertCampCampbellCansecoCantorCapitoCarterCassidyChabotChaffetzCobleCoffman (CO)ColeConawayCravaackCrawfordCrenshawCulbersonDenham DentDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDoldDonnelly (IN)DreierDuffyDuncan (SC)Duncan (TN)EllmersEmersonFarentholdFincherFitzpatrickFlakeFlemingFloresForbesFortenberryFoxxFranks (AZ)FrelinghuysenGalleglyGardnerGarrettGerlachGibbsGibsonGingrey (GA)GohmertGoodlatteGosarGowdyGrangerGraves (GA)Griffin (AR)Griffith (VA)GrimmGuintaGuthrieHallHannaHarperHarrisHartzlerHastings (WA)HayworthHeckHensarlingHergerHerrera BeutlerHuelskampHuizenga (MI)HultgrenHunterHurtIssaJenkinsJohnson (IL)Johnson (OH)Johnson, SamJonesJordanKellyKing (IA)King (NY)KingstonKinzinger (IL)KlineLabradorLambornLanceLandryLankfordLathamLaTouretteLattaLewis (CA)LoBiondoLongLucasLuetkemeyerLummisLungren, Daniel E.MackManzulloMarchantMarinoMcCarthy (CA)McCaulMcClintockMcHenryMcKeonMcKinleyMcMorris RodgersMeehanMicaMiller (FL)Miller (MI)Miller, GaryMulvaneyMurphy (PA)MyrickNeugebauerNoemNugentNunesNunneleeOlsonPalazzoPaulPaulsenPearcePencePetriPittsPlattsPoe (TX)PompeoPoseyPrice (GA)QuayleReedRehbergReichertRenacciRibbleRigellRiveraRobyRoe (TN)Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)Rogers (MI)RohrabacherRokitaRooneyRos-LehtinenRoskamRoss (FL)RoyceRunyanRyan (WI)ScaliseSchillingSchmidtSchockSchweikertScott (SC)Scott, AustinSensenbrennerSessionsShimkusShulerShusterSimpsonSmith (NE)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SoutherlandStearnsStiversStutzmanSullivanTerryThompson (PA)ThornberryTiberiTiptonTurner (NY)Turner (OH)UptonWalbergWaldenWalsh (IL)WebsterWestWestmorelandWhitfieldWilson (SC)WittmanWolfWomackWoodallYoung (AK)Young (FL)Young (IN)
NOES--181
AckermanAltmireAndrewsBacaBaldwinBarberBarrowBass (CA)BecerraBerkleyBermanBishop (GA)Bishop (NY)BlumenauerBonamiciBorenBoswellBrady (PA)Braley (IA)Brown (FL)CappsCapuanoCarnahanCarneyCarson (IN)Castor (FL)ChandlerChuCicillineClarke (MI)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnConnolly (VA)ConyersCooperCostaCourtneyCritzCrowleyCuellarCummingsDavis (CA)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDeLauroDeutchDicksDingellDoggettDoyleEdwardsEllisonEngelEshooFarrFattahFilnerFrank (MA)FudgeGaramendiGonzalezGreen, AlGreen, GeneGrijalvaGutierrezHahnHanabusaHastings (FL)HeinrichHigginsHimesHincheyHinojosaHironoHochulHoldenHoltHondaHoyerIsraelJohnson, E. B.KapturKeatingKildeeKindKucinichLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)Lee (CA)LevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLoebsackLofgren, ZoeLoweyLujanLynchMaloneyMarkeyMathesonMatsuiMcCarthy (NY)McCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcIntyreMcNerneyMeeksMichaudMiller (NC)Miller, GeorgeMooreMoranMurphy (CT)NadlerNapolitanoNealOlverOwensPallonePascrellPastor (AZ)PelosiPerlmutterPetersPetersonPingree (ME)PolisPrice (NC)QuigleyRahallRangelReyesRichardsonRichmondRoss (AR)Rothman (NJ)Roybal-AllardRuppersbergerRushRyan (OH)Sanchez, Linda T.Sanchez, LorettaSarbanesSchakowskySchiffSchraderSchwartzScott (VA)Scott, DavidSerranoSewellShermanSiresSlaughterSmith (WA)SpeierStarkSuttonThompson (CA)Thompson (MS)TierneyTonkoTownsTsongasVan HollenVelazquezViscloskyWalz (MN)Wasserman SchultzWatersWattWaxmanWelchWilson (FL)WoolseyYarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
AkinBlackBurton (IN)ButterfieldCardozaCohenCostelloFleischmannGraves (MO)Jackson (IL)Jackson Lee (TX)Johnson (GA)KissellYoder
{time} 1140
Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
