[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 77 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H3032-H3042]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2216, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014; AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2217, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 243 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 243
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2216) making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the
committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a
recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2217) making appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2014, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived except for section 563. During consideration of the
bill for amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole
may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether
the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for
that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that
the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2014, the provisions of House
Concurrent Resolution 25, as adopted by the House, shall have
force and effect in the House as though Congress has adopted
such concurrent resolution, and the allocations of spending
authority printed in Tables 11 and 12 of House Report 113-17
shall be considered for all purposes in the House to be the
allocations under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
{time} 1300
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend and colleague, the
gentleman 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. WEBSTER of Florida. 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
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
rule and the two underlying bills.
House Resolution 243 provides for an open rule for consideration of
H.R. 2216, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2014, and H.R. 2217, the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2014.
This rule provides ample opportunities for Members from both the
minority and majority to participate in the debate, and it does not
limit the number of amendments that may be considered, so long as the
amendments comply with the rules of the House.
My colleagues from both sides of the aisle agree that these
appropriation acts for fiscal year 2014 are the products of an open,
collaborative, and bipartisan process.
They provide critical funding for military construction, housing,
schools, and medical facilities for our servicemembers and their
families, important veteran programs, the protection and security of
our airports, seaports and national border, and disaster relief
efforts. They also reduce duplication, improve oversight, encourage
efficiency, and increase coordination of services.
Mr. Speaker, these bills address nonpartisan issues that affect every
one of us. The seamless operation of these agencies and programs and
projects will benefit all Americans.
Let me first address H.R. 2216, the Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2014.
This fiscally sound bill funds programs that are necessary to keep
our promises to our veterans and to train, equip, house, and support
the brave men and women in uniform, as well as their families.
This bill provides over $73 billion in discretionary funding, which
is $1.4 billion above the enacted fiscal year 2013 level. It continues
to provide advanced funding that was approved in fiscal year 2013 for
veteran medical care and funds programs to reduce the staggering
backlog which severely delayed the process of veteran benefits claims.
This advance funding will ensure that our veterans have full access to
medical care regardless of where we stand in the annual appropriation
process.
H.R. 2216 funds military construction projects, including family
housing, military medical facilities, and Department of Defense
education facilities. It also funds critical VA medical services and
provides for a unified electronic health record system to integrate
Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs health records.
[[Page H3033]]
Currently, our veterans must physically present a hard copy of their
DOD health records at their VA appointments, and physicians are unable
to look up the patient's medical history if a patient does not have
their records with them. This bill addresses this frustrating and
inefficient process and will begin to replace an archaic paper record
system with an electronic system that will ensure our veterans will be
efficiently served and receive the care they need and deserve.
Next, I'd like to talk about and highlight a few of the important
provisions in H.R. 2217, the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act of 2014. This bill is essential to protect the
security of our national borders and the safety and well-being of all
Americans.
This bill provides $38 billion in discretionary funding for the
Department of Homeland Security, which includes funding for 21,370
Border Patrol agents and nearly 22,800 Customs and Border Protection
officers--the largest totals in history. It also directs U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement to train agents to identify and
assist victims of human trafficking and directs ICE to increase
spending on human trafficking and smuggling investigations.
H.R. 2217 also provides funding for FEMA to ensure our Nation is
prepared to provide disaster relief and funds the Coast Guard.
Finally, I'd like to reiterate that these bills strengthen our
national security and continue the well-being of our brave
servicemembers, their families, and other veterans. They also recognize
that our growing debt threatens the stability and safety of our Nation,
and for this reason these bills make recommendations to reduce
bureaucratic inefficiencies, duplication, and overhead.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
underlying legislation. The Appropriations Committee has worked hard to
provide us with two fiscally responsible appropriation bills that will
meet the housing construction and medical needs of our military and
provide support to their families. They will keep our promises to
America's veterans, and they will enhance our national security.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I'd also like to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Florida, the former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives,
who clearly championed there and here, likewise, regular order.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2216 and
H.R. 2217, as outlined by my colleague from the other side, two
appropriations measures that fund military construction and family
housing projects, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department
of Homeland Security.
Once again, my friends on the other side are using this particular
rule as yet another attempt to deem and pass the controversial budget
offered by our colleague Paul Ryan.
This is exactly what they did in April of last year when they reneged
on their promises in the Budget Control Act and also during
consideration of H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science
Appropriations for fiscal year 2013.
My Republican colleagues have been calling for regular order;
however, both the House and the Senate each passed a budget this year
and regular order would have them go to conference to negotiate a
budget for the 113th Congress. But instead of appointing conferees, the
Speaker of the House and the House Republican leadership are deeming
the Ryan budget passed.
{time} 1310
Someone in a graphic that I saw said they're deeming the impossible
deem.
I, as one exemplar, should know, having served on the Rules Committee
in the majority when we were going forward. We did consider deem and
pass, and we learned along the way that that was going to skew the
process. Therefore, we retreated from that, and I would urge my
friends, the Republicans, to do likewise.
They would rather see, it appears, greater military spending, at the
expense of vital programs that millions of Americans rely on, than work
with Democrats to replace the sequester and properly fund our Nation's
government.
Now, I'm not going through the litany of all the things that the
sequester has cut and the problems that it has caused. Most people know
that. But the Meals on Wheels program has been the one put forward, and
I just think it is plain dumb and crazy to not take care of older
people in our society. Never mind all the ideology, all the deficit,
all the other hawk talk, who cares when someone that is a grandmother
goes to sleep hungry because we didn't do what we should have done and
that we passed a foolish sequester that has caused these problems.
As a result, we're working with different budget target levels. In
the House, it is $0.966 trillion and approximately $1.07 trillion for
the Senate, which both sides agreed upon in the Budget Control Act of
2011.
These differences are important. The reductions imposed by the House
302(b) allocations mean greater cuts for agencies and programs that
already face difficult budget decisions due to sequestration. The two
funding bills coming before us for consideration this week, along with
those for defense and the legislative branch, are the only ones
expected to receive an increase over the 2013 post-sequester levels.
This means that we'll be forced to sacrifice health care, environment,
education, transportation, and other important spending priorities in
order to meet the new overall reductions required by the sequester.
Furthermore, the appropriation for Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs is the only budget with a 302(b) allocation that is higher than
pre-sequestration funding levels, whereas funding for Homeland
Security, in my opinion, is unacceptably low in some areas, and the
bill is encumbered by very, very troublesome riders, and I would urge
the Members of the House to look carefully at those riders.
Consequently, the 302(b) allocation would provide a 22 percent
reduction to the pre-sequestration budget for health care, education,
and labor programs. In my opinion, that's just plain outrageous.
Republicans are again asking--I'm fond of saying in the Rules
Committee that when I was 11 and 12 years old, my favorite radio
program that my grandmother would let me listen to on Saturdays was a
program called ``Let's Pretend.'' Little did I know 65 years later that
I would be in an august body that is also in and of itself sitting
around with people pretending that things are happening that are not
happening.
Republicans are asking us to pretend that the Ryan budget is law,
when in fact it is not. This unilateral action is a formula for
conflict, and I predict for you that that's what we'll have. While I
appreciate the spirit of bipartisanship, and those gentlemen who came
yesterday, Mr. Price and Mr. Bishop, the ranking members, and Judge
Carter and his counterpart did an exceptional job, as did John
Culberson, in showing this body that there can be bipartisan efforts.
They did so, and I would hope that would serve for the rest of
appropriations and for this body to take notice that people can work
together when they try. And that bipartisanship led to the funding
levels contained in both of these bills that we are considering under
this rule. It is regrettable that it was not extended to the entire
process.
Simply put, the framework within which we are considering these
bills--the Ryan budget that House Republicans have deemed as passed--is
a nonstarter.
Administration folks said yesterday that unless this bill passes the
Congress in the context of an overall budget framework that supports
our recovery and enables sufficient investments in education,
infrastructure--and a footnote right there: Do we need to be reminded
about the bridge that fell in the State of Washington, about the number
of bridges in this Nation that are in disrepair and have been in
disrepair? When Bill Clinton became President, he advocated that there
were 14,000 bridges in need of repair, and he asked for a little bit of
money that we should have allocated then. Now we have thousands of
bridges in disrepair, and we are going about a process like this
ignoring them.
[[Page H3034]]
Where do we get the innovation at NIH for the health needs that are
coming and the technological needs that are coming? How do we protect
national security for our economy to be able to compete in the future?
The President's senior advisers indicated that they would recommend
to the President that he veto H.R. 2216 and H.R. 2217, and any other
legislation that implements the House deemed budget framework. As I've
said time and again, this is no way to run a budget process, and no way
to conduct the business of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind everyone
that we're talking about a rule here. And this rule, different from
those that were proposed in the Congresses before I got here, in the
111th Congress, is an open rule. It allows for amendments. If there are
those who do not like what's in these bills, they can do everything
that they need to do in an amendment and get 218 votes and pass it, and
it'll change. If this bill needs perfecting, either one of these bills
need perfecting, they can be perfected.
I believe that is as close to regular order as we can get. If we can
come down to this floor, offer an amendment, get an opportunity to
debate that amendment, have our say, hopefully get the votes to pass
it, change the bill, that's the way this process should work.
This rule provides for that. It provides for two very well-thought-
out appropriation bills, which may have flaws. But if there are flaws,
whether you're a Republican or Democrat, come on down. Once we pass
this rule, we'll be taking those bills up one at a time. And any
amendment, as long as it's within the germaneness rules of this House,
can be offered. We would welcome that. I think both sides would welcome
that.
That's why when both of these bills came out of committee, there were
glowing reports, both from the minority report and from the majority
report. They are well-thought-out bills. They are well-done bills. They
are bipartisan. They're done in an open and collaborative way, in an
open, real, and regular order process. So for those reasons, I think
this is a great rule because it sets forward the opportunity of people
on this floor, no matter who they are, from a freshman to a senior
Member, from Republican to Democrat, from moderate, liberal, and
conservative, no matter who they are, to offer amendments to these
bills, both of them. And if they get a majority vote, they can pass
them. So I think that to me is an open process. That's also regular
order.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my colleague began by saying
that's as close to regular order as we can get. I would tell him,
close, but no cigar.
Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good
friend from New York, Mrs. Lowey, who has been on the Appropriations
Committee at times when we didn't deem things and we did, in fact, pass
appropriations measures.
{time} 1320
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule,
which would deem the discretionary spending levels in the Ryan budget
as law.
The Ryan budget endorses sequestration, is unrealistic, unworkable,
economically misguided. The Senate and the White House are using a
different set of numbers.
By adopting the rule and the Ryan budget and breaking caps in the
Budget Control Act which passed this body, we guarantee gridlock. The
House majority will pass a small number of bills at roughly the
President's requested levels, but will be unable to get bipartisan
support for the remaining bills.
It would also jeopardize our economic recovery. Europeans are
experiencing the limits of austerity in the midst of a fragile
recovery. We should invest more in education, biomedical research,
transportation infrastructure, clean energy and other initiatives that
grow our economy and create jobs. Instead, the deeming resolution would
take a step back, all but ensuring significant reductions.
To turn off the sequester, ensure the House's relevance in the
process, and pass reasonable bills, Democrats offered in committee a
motion to postpone consideration of subcommittee allocations until a
budget resolution could be conferenced.
And I do want to say this, and I would like to say this to my friend,
the distinguished Chair on the other side of the House, there has been
a call for a budget resolution on the Senate. They did a budget
resolution on the Senate that has been requested by my good friends on
the other side of the aisle. That budget resolution passed.
However, I know the ranking member of the House Budget Committee,
Chris Van Hollen, has called for a conference, went to the Rules
Committee five times and said, Let's have a conference so we can move
forward. That was denied.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Mrs. LOWEY. So, my colleagues, with a balanced deficit reduction
plan, we could establish an alternative allocation that would
sufficiently fund our priorities and allow us to follow regular order
for the appropriations process.
Instead of my friends engaging today in a futile process--it's just a
futile exercise--the House should abide by the discretionary caps in
the Budget Control Act. Turn off the sequester before we consider
spending bills.
My friends, vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mrs. Lowey, just before you leave, you have
just an additional few seconds. Will the gentlelady yield to me?
Mrs. LOWEY. I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I just want to say, in addition to the fact
that Chris Van Hollen came to the Rules Committee five times, Harry
Reid has offered eight times to go to conference and Republicans have
blocked it. And I just want that to be understood, because later on
we're going to hear somebody stand up here and say it's Democrats that
are holding it up, and it's not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. LOWEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Mrs. LOWEY. I just want to make a point to my friend on the other
side of the aisle: the bill before us today is a bipartisan bill. There
was strong support on both sides of the aisle. The chair and the
ranking member worked together in a collegial way because this bill is
so important for our country.
The problem here is, after this bill and Homeland Security, there's
nothing left. Education, National Institutes of Health are in a bill
that's going to be cut 22 percent.
So, my friend, the issue is not these bills today; it's the process
and the fact there isn't a complete plan in place.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I've been in this process a long time, not necessarily here, but in
other venues, and what I have found is what's before you is before you,
and what comes later may or may not come later.
But I would say this to the gentlelady, that what we have here are
two bills that are bipartisan bills, and they have a great deal of
input from both sides. They came out of committee with a strong vote,
with both Republicans and Democrats.
And so my thought is: here we are. We're here. We're addressing this
particular issue. Now, when these other bills come to the floor of the
House, before they get here they're going to pass through the Rules
Committee, too, these appropriation bills. I will do everything I can
to make them open, also, so that anybody that wants to amend them or
perfect them has the opportunity.
I believe in an open process. I believe that Members, no matter how
long it takes, should have the opportunity to say their piece. And no
matter what your philosophy is, no matter what your party is, no matter
what your position is, no matter what your rank is, if you're 435th it
doesn't really matter, you should have an opportunity to present your
case.
And so, these are these two bills. We have talked about the fact that
we're
[[Page H3035]]
going to have an open process here, and people want to perfect these
bills; then great, offer an amendment. When the other appropriation
bills come, that'll be the time to talk about them. But when they do,
just know this: I'm going to be one that is going to be pressing hard
to have open rules for them, also.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very pleased
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), my very good friend, the minority whip of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend.
Mr. Speaker, what's before us is before us. What's before us is a
rule, not the MilCon bill, not Homeland Security.
What's before us is the bill. And what does the bill do?
It doesn't have an open process. It doesn't allow us an amendment.
Mr. Van Hollen wanted to have an amendment and say let's go to
conference on the budget; let's decide what these numbers ought to be.
No, it's our way or the highway.
You've passed a budget. You're going to stick with those numbers.
They won't work. You know they won't work. That's why you don't go to
conference, because Mr. Ryan knows he couldn't make a deal that he
could bring back to this House and your side would vote for, I tell my
friend on the Rules Committee.
So what's before us is before us, a ratification of sequester, which
starts with ``S,'' which stands for ``stupid.'' It is a terrible
process. It is an irrational, commonsense-defying process.
And yet my Republican friends continue to demand that we mark to
figures that were contrary to the understanding, agreement--deal, if
you want--that we made.
In August of 2011, we made a deal and we said these are going to be
the numbers, and the ink was not dry on the paper until such time as
you violated that agreement. And the Ryan budget violates it once again
and is $91 billion, almost 9 percent, less than the deal we made.
What's before us is before us, the gentleman says. What's before us
is the rule to ratify the sequester.
Now, your side blames the President for it. The President doesn't
want the sequester. We don't want the sequester. Mr. Van Hollen, who's
sitting here, doesn't want the sequester, and he's tried to offer
amendments to obviate the sequester and hasn't been allowed to have
those amendments on the floor, I tell my friend on the Rules Committee.
And I congratulate him for his position, but he ought to allow the
Van Hollen amendment so the House can, in fact, work its will, so that
we can, in fact, have a process that will work.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. HOYER. Now, my friend says he's been here for some time and he's
participated in another legislative body. Well, I've been here for a
long time myself, as the gentleman knows, some 33 years, and 12 years
in the Maryland Senate, President of the Senate for the last 4 I was
there. So I've been around for some years myself.
The fact is, I will tell the gentleman, there is no possibility
you're going to consider all 12 bills because, as the gentlelady said,
you're going to run out of money. Why? Because you're front-loading
that which you like, and that which you're not too happy about is going
to be not only breaking the agreement we made, but far below your own
budget numbers because you didn't want to mark to your 966 with this
bill.
{time} 1330
Why? Because you want to make sure the veterans were taken care of.
God bless you. I agree with that. But there's only X number of dollars
in that pot, and somebody's going to lose.
What the President is saying is let's consider them all together.
That's what we ought to be doing. Reject this bill, reject this
sequester, reject this deeming resolution, and let us have a rule that
makes common sense for our country.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I will reiterate the fact that it is what is before us. We
cannot get to these two bipartisan, well-thought-out, well-debated,
well-collaborated pieces of legislation which deal with some issues
that are very, very important without passing a rule to allow us to do
that. That's what this rule does. It deals with those two bills. No,
those two bills aren't before us, but this rule is the gateway to get
to those bills. How are we going to get there? We're going to pass this
rule. Once we get there, what are we going to do? We're going to have
an open process--one that has been foreign until the Republicans took
control of this legislature--foreign, no matter what your standing in
this body was.
There were closed bills after closed bills after closed bills after
closed bills that came up. Was there an opportunity to amend it, to
perfect it, to do anything with it? Absolutely not. But that's not the
way it is now. If we pass this rule, we're going to get to a process
that allows every Member to come down to this floor and offer an
amendment, debate that amendment, and have the possibility of passing
that amendment.
So, yes, there are other issues, there are other appropriations,
there are other bills that will be coming to this floor at some point
in time. And at that time we can debate them. But right now, this is
the issue before us. These two very important bills--and very much
agreed-on bills--are only going to be taken up on this floor if this
rule passes.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. May I inquire how much time is remaining on
both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster)
has 19 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased and privileged at this time to yield 3
minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which aims to
approve the House majority's inadequate appropriations allocation level
for 2014, a level that is over $90 billion below that of the Senate and
the President and violates the agreement that we all voted on a year
ago, Democrats and Republicans, in the Budget Control Act to increase
that funding above the number that they present to us today.
The budget reflects our values, reflects our priorities, and our
responsibilities to the people that we represent. It is our job to make
sure that that is the case. And yet for the third time in 3 years, this
House majority has put forward a reckless and ideological funding level
that ensures that our government cannot even meet its most basic
responsibilities to the American people.
Under this House majority's plan, we will see cuts that are deeper
than the indiscriminate across-the-board cuts. The funding for the
Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services is drastically cut. And
this rule accepts those cuts made to the program this year and then it
multiplies that by four in 2014. What are those cuts? Where do they
fall? And if enacted, the wrong choices will cause incalculable damage.
They severely weaken these critical programs that protect public health
and safety, that promote and develop our workforce, training programs,
education, Pell Grants, Meals on Wheels, special education, and
biomedical research so that people can live. It affects our seniors,
our veterans, our middle class, and our most vulnerable families.
I, along with Congressman Van Hollen and others, have offered
legislation that cuts $30 billion from the Federal deficit and replaces
the deep and indiscriminate cuts for the next 2 years with a more
balanced and a targeted approach. That's the direction we should be
moving in--keeping up with our fundamental responsibilities to the
families who have elected us to stand up for them.
Rather than going down this path, the House majority should appoint
budget conferees and do its job and negotiate with the Senate. Our
appropriations chairman claims to want to undo sequestration. Yet
rather than showing leadership, the House majority fails to address the
sequester and create conditions for another budget crisis down the
road.
[[Page H3036]]
We hear so much talk from this majority about regular order. What
does that mean? The House passes a bill, the Senate passes bill, they
work out their differences, they get it to the President, and the
President signs the bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, where is the regular
order? It is autocracy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. DeLAURO. No more games. I urge all of my colleagues to vote
against this disastrous funding level. Let's work together to fix the
sequester and get us back on the path to economic growth. This is our
top priority. It must be our top priority. And this House of
Representatives needs to show the American people that it can lead.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to reiterate again the benefits of these two bills that we're
going to be debating if we pass this rule. They provide critical
funding for military construction, housing, schools, and medical
facilities for our servicemembers and their families, as well as
important veterans programs. They protect security for our airports,
seaports, and national border, as well as disaster relief efforts. They
also reduce duplication, improve oversight, encourage efficiency, and
increase coordination of services.
If there were one provision in a bill that would push you over the
edge of voting for or against something, it would be the idea of
getting rid of this old paperwork. I've had someone come and tell me
that they had gotten a tetanus shot, I think, about 3 weeks before they
got out of the service. Once they got out, they went to the VA and they
forgot to take the record with them. So they had no proof. They went to
the VA and they said, You're going to have to get a tetanus shot. He
says, Wait a minute, I've already gotten one. You don't have that
record? No. And if you don't have it with you, we don't know. Because
you can tell us you had one 3 months ago, but that doesn't matter.
We need to do it. This one bill gets rid of that process and says
we're going to move towards a modern system of electronically
transferring these records. There's so many good things in these two
bills; it's just pretext for the fact that this rule needs to be
approved.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. If we defeat the previous question, we'll
offer an amendment to the rule that strikes the provision of the rule
that deems the passage of the Ryan budget and will allow the House to
consider the resolution calling on Speaker Boehner to proceed to
conference on the budget.
It is time for the majority to follow regular House procedure by
immediately requesting a conference and appointing conferees to
negotiate a fiscal 2014 budget resolution conference agreement with the
Senate.
To discuss our proposal, I'm very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my
good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend, Mr. Hastings.
I've been listening to Mr. Webster. And if I were Mr. Webster, I'd be
doing exactly what he's doing, which is focusing on the underlying
bills: the spending bill to support our veterans, to support military
construction, and homeland security.
{time} 1340
But as others have pointed out, the vote before us is not on those
underlying bills. It's on the rule. And everybody needs to understand
that what's at play here is a scheme to use the rules to affect not
just the veterans budget, but to affect other parts of our budget.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I find it especially cynical that our
colleagues would use the spending bills on veterans and military
construction as the vehicle to pass their budget levels which will
result in dramatic cuts to the parts of the budget that fund our kids'
education and that fund the investments in science and research to find
cures and treatments to things like cancer, because we know the
Appropriations Committee has already set out what the levels for those
categories to the budget will be. And do you know what they are? A $30
billion cut below the sequester level to the parts of the budget that
fund our kids' education and that fund that scientific research.
So, yes, this is the rule for two particular bills. They are good
bills. The veterans bill is a good bill. But the rule, ladies and
gentlemen, has embedded in it the Republican budget levels for the
overall budget process. And that's going to hurt education for the kids
of those veterans and the family members of those veterans who have
diseases whose funding for research is going to be dramatically cut. A
20 percent cut below the sequester level, that's what you're adopting
in this rule, a 20 percent cut for the category of the budget on
education.
Now, why are we here? We're supposed to have a budget process. The
House passed a budget. I don't like the budget, but it passed a budget.
The Senate passed a budget. Under the rules of the Congress, in fact,
as a matter of law, the House and Senate are supposed to have completed
a conference committee by April 15. That was quite a while ago. In
fact, it's been over 70 days since the Senate passed a budget and the
House passed a budget.
Now, we don't have a House-Senate conference committee report. Why
might that be? Well, it turns out that the Speaker of the House has
refused to appoint conferrees to work with the Senate to come up with a
budget. Now, our Republican colleagues beat up for years on the Senate
for not having a budget. I can understand that complaint. But the
Senate has a budget now, and yet our Republican colleagues refuse to go
to conference.
You made a big deal about ``no budget, no pay.'' Guess what? We don't
have a budget. We have a House budget and we have a Senate budget, but
we don't have a Federal budget, and yet everybody is getting paid. What
happened to that?
Now, why would we not want to go to conference? Mr. Speaker, just
today in the United States Senate, Patty Murray, the chairwoman for the
Budget Committee, for the 11th time tried to get consent to go to
conference to work these differences out in a transparent way, blocked
by a Republican Senator.
Here is what Senator McCain has had to say about the whole process,
because I would urge our colleagues to listen to him. This is a quote
from Senator McCain:
I think it's insane for Republicans who complained for 4
years about Harry Reid not having a budget and now we're not
going to agree to conference? That is beyond comprehension
for me.
And I think it's beyond comprehension for the American people. Why
are you sitting on the budget?
So what are we doing in this rule? This rule says let's pretend.
Let's make believe that the House and Senate went to conference, and
let's pretend that they agree, except let's pretend that they agreed on
the House budget numbers, the numbers that would cut the part of the
budget that deals with our kids' education by over 20 percent. Let's
pretend that because we don't want to go through the normal process.
That's what this rule does. It's a total fake. And it's a fake because
of the refusal to work these issues out in a transparent manner for the
American people.
So, the previous question is a very simple statement. It just says
let's comply with the law which says a conference committee was
supposed to have met and completed action by April 15; let's at least
start down the process of complying with the law. It says that it is
the sense of the House of Representatives that the Speaker should
follow regular House procedure and immediately request a conference and
appoint conferees to negotiate a fiscal year 2014 budget resolution so
we can have a real Federal budget, not a fake budget, which is what
you're calling for in this rule under the guise of saying let's just
fund our veterans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I find it especially cynical
that we would use a good bill to provide spending and support to our
veterans as the vehicle to impose this scheme on the Congress which
will have terrible, negative effects on other parts of the budget.
Do you know that while this Congress was away, I don't know if people
[[Page H3037]]
saw it, but down in Fort Bragg, the home of the 82nd Airborne, they
just said that teachers who were going to teach the kids of our
servicemen and -women are going to be furloughed for 5 days this fall--
for 5 days this fall. So we want to replace the sequester. Let's go to
conference and get it done.
I urge my colleagues who said they want a transparent process to vote
for our measure.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes of my time to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from
Florida for yielding me the time.
I hadn't anticipated coming down here today, Mr. Speaker. I came down
to listen, but I hadn't anticipated coming down to speak. And I will
say to my friend from Maryland his words struck me, because twice in
his presentation he said, you know, I think it's especially cynical
that we're using this process to bring forward two bills that in a
bipartisan way we agree on.
I would say to my friend with a heavy heart, Mr. Speaker, that I
think it's especially cynical, since we both know these bills need to
be passed, to describe what is happening here in any terms other than
that which is exactly necessary in order to get these bills passed.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. Let me get this off my chest, and I'd be happy to yield
to my friend. I would be happy to yield when I'm done, because I have a
copy of the rule here.
And the gentleman was in the Rules Committee last night, and the
gentleman knows this is what section 3 provides, that pending the
adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget, we're going to move
forward, pending the adoption.
Now, my friend knows, Mr. Speaker, how hard it is to find that
agreement. And the reason my friend knows is because I voted for the
Budget Control Act in August of 2011, which put my friend and five
other Members of the House, it was six House Members, six Senate
Members, six Republicans, six Democrats, it put them in a room together
for August, September, October, and November with the entire Federal
budget over the next 100 years in front of them, allowing them to
choose anything they wanted to to agree on to let us move forward as a
nation.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Collectively they agreed on not one
dollar. I don't fault my friend for that. I know my friend was working
as hard as my friend could possibly work to find agreement. But finding
agreement is hard. What we're talking about finding agreement with, Mr.
Speaker, this comes from The Washington Post editorial page. It's
entitled, ``The Democrats' complacent budget plan.'' It says:
Partisan in tone and complacent in substance, the budget
scores points against the Republicans and reassures the
party's liberal base but deepens these Senators' commitment
to an unsustainable policy agenda.
This is what it is that we're trying to find agreement on. Now, my
friend from Maryland knows, in fact, he may have even brought it to my
attention yesterday, a letter directing the chairman of the Rules
Committee, on which I sit, Mr. Speaker, from the chairman of the Budget
Committee, also on which I sit, that's signed by Chairman Paul Ryan. It
says this, over Paul Ryan's signature:
I want to emphasize that this is a request for an interim
measure while the Committee on the Budget continues to work
towards an agreement with the Senate on a budget resolution
for the coming fiscal year.
And I would, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend
from Maryland, does he doubt the chairman's word when the chairman says
this is an interim solution until we find agreement?
I'd be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. My colleague, what I know are the facts, which is
just today, as I said on the floor, the chairwoman of the Senate Budget
Committee, for the 11th time, said to Mr. Ryan, Let's go to conference
so we can work out these differences in a public way. And she was
blocked over here just like we've been blocked over here.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman knows that Chairman
Ryan has no control over the inside workings of the United States
Senate, and Chairman Ryan did not block what was going on in the United
States Senate. The United States Senators were blocking it.
I would ask the gentleman again: Does the gentleman doubt the
chairman's word? I understand that the gentleman is frustrated about
process, and goodness knows, as someone who supports open rules, I'm
frustrated with process, too. We have that in common. But
notwithstanding that process, what I have here is a letter from a man
which you and I both support--and ``support,'' I mean we believe in his
integrity. And he tells us that he is working towards a solution and
that what we're doing here today is just an interim step to get these
bills that we all agree are so very important, we all agree are so very
important, the interim step to get these moving down the process.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I would yield to ask the gentleman does he disagree with
the commitment made by the chairman? And I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I'm not questioning the integrity of the chairman of
the Budget Committee.
This is not just about process. As I indicated, you adopt this rule
and you're essentially applying a 20 percent cut below sequester to the
part of the budget that deals with our kids' education and science and
research. So this is way beyond process.
{time} 1350
So this is way beyond process.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman that's
just not the case.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That is the case. The gentleman should go read the
Appropriations Committee 302(b) allocations.
Mr. WOODALL. I'm aware of the Appropriations Committee 302(b)
allocations. And what I'm aware of, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to
have those allocations to begin the process. The gentleman is talking
about where we are going to finish the process on October 1. I'm trying
to get it started today. The gentleman knows that we can't get started.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Why are those levels at the levels they are? Would the gentleman
answer that question?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 2 minutes.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I want to quote what one of my Democratic colleagues quoted last
night in the Rules Committee, and that's Federalist Paper No. 58,
written by James Madison for the Independent Journal back on February
20, 1788. And he said this:
This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the
most complete and effectual weapon with which any
constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the
people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for
carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.
Because that's the constitutional responsibility of this body, Mr.
Speaker, to appropriate these dollars. This process of appropriations,
this constitutional responsibility, cannot begin until we have some
numbers against which to budget and appropriate.
What my chairman on the Budget Committee has asked is that as an
interim step, and an interim step only, we adopt these numbers today on
bills about which we all agree. What is cynical, Mr. Speaker, is that
these are things on which we all agree, and we're using this as a
position to talk about other issues about which we disagree.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield, because we don't agree on
cutting the kids' education budget?
Mr. WOODALL. As my friend knows from his time having to negotiate on
the joint select, what we'll call the supercommittee, my friends at The
Washington Post go on to say:
In short, this document--
Talking about the budget passed by the Senate.
--gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a
viable plan for--or even a responsible public assessment of--
the country's long-term fiscal predicament.
Now, I will say, Mr. Speaker, that gives me great concern about
whether
[[Page H3038]]
we will be able to reach agreement with the Senate. As my friend from
Maryland knows, Mr. Speaker, the House budget reduces spending by
trillions of dollars and the Senate budget increases spending even
more. In many years, it spends more than even the President requested.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. As my friend from Maryland knows, we keep tax revenues
the same and the Senate increases taxes by almost $1 trillion.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I just want to know why you're afraid to go to
conference. Why is that? That's what this is about.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has
again expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my very good friend from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Let me just say, first, as a member of both the Appropriations and
the Budget Committees, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. The
allocations provided under this rule will savage vital programs that
protect the public health and safety, promote and develop our
workforce, and educate the next generation of Americans.
Sequester cuts are already hitting low-income families throughout our
country and also in my congressional district in my home State of
California. And every single household in America, especially the
millions of Americans who are struggling still to find a job, these
cuts are hitting them disproportionately.
Our economy cannot afford these cuts. Hungry children do not deserve
these cuts. Students who depend on Pell Grants, TRIO, and Head Start do
not deserve these cuts. And certainly, our seniors and our veterans do
not deserve these cuts.
The Military Construction-Veterans bill on the floor this week
assumes the sequester cuts have been replaced. Why in the world can't
we do this for the other bills as well? We all know that the allocation
for the rest of the subcommittees will make it nearly impossible to
fund education, senior programs, infrastructure, and job creation.
While all of us believe it is important to keep the government
functioning, governing by a continuing resolution is really no way to
run the Federal Government, and that is exactly what course we are on
unless we come to some agreement.
The majority claims that they care about the middle class and the
poor, yet these cuts really do begin to erode the middle class and
force more people into poverty. So it's time for Congress to reject
these draconian cuts and replace the sequester with a bipartisan
agreement on the budget resolution to create jobs and to lift the
economy for all.
Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. We need to vote ``no'' on the rule,
and we need to go back to the drawing board.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, that last discussion was worth
paying the price to come here. But I would like to say this, to bring
it back to where we are, and that is:
We have before us a rule. This rule is going to be the gateway--the
gateway--to an open process. That open process, when it opens up, is
beautiful to behold. We have two bills that will be heard. Both of
those bills are going to be able to be amended by any Member that would
like to do it. And to me, that is what I have searched for, and I think
it's a great thing.
We have the opportunity to come to this floor, agree or disagree, but
in the end we will produce a product that was put together by a
bipartisan group of members of two different committees of the
Appropriations Committee. And it went through the regular process.
Bringing it to the floor with an open rule is the regular process. That
is why I'm supporting this rule, because the rule gives the gateway to
us doing those bills.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague
that I have no further speakers, and I'm prepared to close. So I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I guess I have to ask the question at the beginning that
Mr. Van Hollen has persisted in asking, and I as well and others: Why
are you afraid to go to conference? I have no idea why you can't do
that and follow the regular order.
I agree with my colleague that this bipartisan measure is a very good
thing that we are bringing here, but I also agree with other speakers
that when we finish doing these two bills--and I predict for my friend
that we will not reach a single other measure of appropriations for the
reason that if you're going to cut 22 percent from everything else and
you're going to hold harmless the things that you and I like, then be
assured we are in serious trouble as the appropriations process moves
forward.
We have a responsibility to implement a budget framework that
supports programs which help Americans provide for their families, to
stay in their homes, and remain competitive in the global economy. The
Ryan budget picks winners and losers, and we are picking two winners
today, and we are going to have 11 losers on down the road.
``Deem and pass'' did not work the last Congress, it didn't work when
Democrats thought that they could try it, and it ain't gonna work now.
It is long past time that House Republicans work together with
Democrats in conference, just as these two committees did, to negotiate
a budget and put an end to the devastating sequester.
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. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
rule, and I'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time after I ask
the question one more time: Why are you afraid to go to conference?
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1400
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit two letters into the Record.
The first letter is from the Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan. In
his letter, Chairman Ryan asks the Rules Committee to follow standard
practice by addressing budget enforcement pending a conference report
on the budget resolution. To prevent greater uncertainty and further
delays in the appropriations process, House Resolution 243 will include
a provision and does include a provision that adopts the House-passed
budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 25, as an interim budget enforcement
measure until an agreement may be reached with the Senate on the budget
resolution for the coming fiscal year.
I would like to read an excerpt from that letter. This is from
Chairman Ryan to Chairman Sessions, who is the Rules Committee
chairman:
As you know, the budget passed by the House reduces
spending by $4.6 trillion and achieves balance in 2023--all
without raising taxes on the American people. In contrast,
the budget resolution adopted by the Senate raises taxes by
over $900 billion, increases spending by $265 billion and
never balances. While I continue to work with my Senate
counterpart to find common ground, we have not yet been able
to reach agreement.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Let me finish this first.
Another part of that reads:
Until such time as we are able to reach agreement and
consistent with the practice in previous years when the House
and Senate have been delayed in completing action on a budget
resolution, I am asking that the rule include a provision
that adopts the House-passed budget resolution as an interim
budget enforcement measure that will allow the appropriations
process to proceed without further delay.
The second letter is just a response from Representative Sessions,
who is the chair of the Rules Committee, acknowledging that the rule
would include the requested interim budget enforcement measure.
I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I just have a simple question, which is: How is it
that we are going to get agreement from the House and the Senate in a
conference
[[Page H3039]]
committee if the Speaker of the House continues to refuse to go to
conference? How are we going to get that agreement?
The reason we don't have a conference committee budget report and you
have to use this device is that there is no conference, and the reason
there is no conference is that our Republican colleagues in the House
refuse to appoint conferees, which is why we want to pass this
amendment and let the Members vote on whether or not we go to
conference.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I reclaim my time and will not yield any more
time after this.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am not involved in that process. However,
I can tell you this: I was a speaker at one point in time in a
different body and at a different time in my career. Even if a
conference committee has not been formed, there are discussions that go
on. Then, eventually, there will be a conference committee, and things
work out, but it doesn't necessarily mean that nothing is happening. I
think things are happening. I think they are working on solutions. We
have to have a solution at some point in time, and that's happening.
This resolution provides for an open rule to allow all Members to
offer their ideas and to debate them through regular order. Two
underlying bills fund necessary programs that train, equip, house, and
support the brave men and women who sacrificially defend our freedoms,
and the bills also support their families. Our debt of gratitude to
these individuals does not expire when they retire, as the legislation
also funds important programs to provide benefits and medical care for
our veterans. Additionally, the legislation equips our Coast Guard and
supports the individuals who guard our borders, secure our airports and
seaports, and who respond to natural disasters.
However, we would be doing a great disservice, Mr. Speaker, to future
generations if we were to fail to consider the effect our current
spending will have on the future fiscal health and safety our Nation.
For that reason, these bills reduce costs, require the coordination of
medical care and ensure the efficient operation of those critical
programs so that we may continue to support those who protect us.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this rule
and in the passage of the underlying bills.
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, DC, May 31, 2013.
Hon. Pete Sessions,
Chairman, Committee on Rules,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Yesterday you announced that the
Committee on Rules will meet on June 3 to report a rule to
govern the floor consideration of the first appropriations
bills for fiscal year 2014. I am writing to ask that you
include in that rule a provision providing for the
enforcement of the concurrent resolution on the budget as
passed by the House (H. Con. Res. 25) until such time as the
House adopts a conference report on the budget for fiscal
year 2014.
As you know, the budget passed by the House reduces
spending by $4.6 trillion and achieves balance in 2023--all
without raising taxes on the American people. In contrast,
the budget resolution adopted by the Senate raises taxes by
over $900 billion, increases spending by $265 billion, and
never balances. While I continue to work with my Senate
counterpart to find common ground, we have not yet been able
to reach agreement.
Until such time as we are able to reach agreement and
consistent with the practice in previous years when the House
and Senate have been delayed in completing action on a budget
resolution, I am asking that the rule include a provision
that adopts the House-passed budget resolution as an interim
budget enforcement measure that will allow the appropriations
process to proceed without further delay.
Pursuant to the authority provided in the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 and in title VI of the House-passed
concurrent resolution on the budget and consistent with
longstanding practice, once the House passes the rule
adopting the House-passed budget resolution, as the Budget
Committee Chairman I intend to file the allocations and
adjustments in the Congressional Record to put in force such
concurrent resolution.
To ensure the Rules Committee and House members have full
transparency on the budget levels that would be enforced,
enclosed are the relevant budget aggregates and committee
allocations that I will file if the House adopts the rule.
The House-passed budget resolution was based on CBO February
budget projections and estimates. The funding levels for
global war on terror (GWOT)/overseas contingency operations
(OCO) and for veterans programs were based on an
extrapolation of the President's budget request from last
year. Because the House acted on the budget resolution before
CBO had completed its updated budget projections and before
the President had submitted his fiscal year 2014 budget
request, the resolution provided authority for the Chairman
to adjust the relevant levels in the resolution to reflect
CBO's updated budget projections and the President's request
for GWOT/OCO and veterans advance appropriations. The
adjustments for CBO's updated baseline will be limited to
changes due to updated technical estimates. Now that we have
CBO's revised baseline projections and the President's budget
request, it is possible to update the levels in the House-
passed budget resolution to reflect this updated information.
Enclosed are tables showing aggregate budget and committee
allocations that will be used for budget enforcement
purposes.
I want to emphasize that this is a request for an interim
measure while the Committee on the Budget continues to work
toward an agreement with the Senate on a budget resolution
for the coming fiscal year. The nation's fiscal problems
cannot be addressed solely through the appropriations process
and the budget remains the critical vehicle for identifying a
solution.
To ensure full transparency as to my intent should this
request be granted, I ask that you include this letter and
the enclosures in the Rules Committee's record of
consideration of the rule. I appreciate your consideration.
If there are any questions, please contact Paul Restuccia,
Chief Counsel of the Committee on the Budget.
Sincerely,
Paul D. Ryan,
Chairman.
Enclosures.
BUDGET AGGREGATES
(On-budget amounts, in millions of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------
2014 2014-2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Aggregates: ................. .................
Budget Authority.............. 2,755,317 \1\
Outlays....................... 2,810,979 \1\
Revenues...................... 2,310,972 31,089,081
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable because annual appropriations acts for fiscal years
2015-2023 will not be considered until future sessions of Congress.
ALLOCATION OF SPENDING AUTHORITY TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
(In millions of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID Base Discretionary Action:
BA..................................................... 966,924
OT..................................................... 1,117,675
Global War on Terrorism:
BA..................................................... 92,289
OT..................................................... 48,010
Total Discretionary Action:
BA..................................................... 1,059,213
OT..................................................... 1,165,685
Current Law Mandatory:
BA..................................................... 749,400
OT..................................................... 738,140
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION BY AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE
(On-budget amounts in millions of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2014-2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 92,956 906,903
OT.............................. 89,341 900,800
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -2,631 -209,044
4OT............................. -2,501 -208,556
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 86,840 692,244
===============================
Armed Services:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 150,138 1,764,863
OT.............................. 149,922 1,768,772
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. 0 0
OT.............................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
4BA......................... 150,138 1,764,863
OT.......................... 149,922 1,768,772
===============================
Financial Services:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 12,981 114,942
OT.............................. 2,112 -57,397
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -11,465 -94,439
OT.............................. -10,428 -94,325
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 1,516 20,503
OT.......................... -8,316 -151,722
===============================
Education & Workforce:
Current Law:
BA.............................. -25,740 -661
OT.............................. -18,800 2,383
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -21,712 -217,458
BA.............................. -7,430 -198,921
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... -47,452 -218,119
OT.......................... -26,230 -196,538
===============================
Energy & Commerce:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 356,892 4,936,804
BA.............................. 356,892 4,936,804
OT.............................. 354,784 4,935,838
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -22,996 -1,604,166
OT.............................. -20,659 -1,596,356
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 333,896 3,332,638
OT.......................... 334,125 3,339,482
===============================
Foreign Affairs:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 29,118 241,385
OT.............................. 26,085 235,012
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. 0 0
OT.............................. 0 0
Total:
BA.......................... 29,118 241,385
OT.......................... 26,085 235,012
===============================
[[Page H3040]]
Oversight & Government Reform:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 102,657 1,199,434
OT.............................. 99,645 1,170,525
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -11,758 -165,996
OT.............................. -11,758 -165,996
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 90,899 1,033,438
OT.......................... 87,887 1,004,529
===============================
Homeland Security:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 1,916 22,255
OT.............................. 1,779 22,321
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -305 -12,575
OT.............................. -305 -12,575
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 1,611 9,680
OT.......................... 1,474 9,746
===============================
House Administration:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 40 371
OT.............................. 6 206
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -34 -295
OT.............................. 0 -130
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 6 76
OT.......................... 6 76
===============================
Natural Resources:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 6,441 63,590
OT.............................. 7,069 66,964
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -900 -17,995
OT.............................. -632 -17,225
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 5,541 45,595
OT.......................... 6,437 49,739
===============================
Judiciary:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 19,809 102,678
OT.............................. 11,573 105,537
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -11,506 -47,461
OT.............................. -637 -45,809
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 8,303 55,217
OT.......................... 10,936 59,728
===============================
Transportation & Infrastructure:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 71,454 728,035
OT.............................. 16,822 193,098
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -78 -116,444
OT.............................. -47 -951
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 71,376 611,591
OT.......................... 16,775 192,147
===============================
Sdence, Space & Technology:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 101 1,010
OT.............................. 104 1,013
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. 0 0
OT.............................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 101 1,010
OT.......................... 104 1,013
===============================
Small Business:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 0 0
OT.............................. 0 0
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. 0 0
OT.............................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 0 0
OT.......................... 0 0
===============================
Veterans Affairs:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 2,939 93,544
OT.............................. 3,098 95,206
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. 0 0
OT.............................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 2,939 93,544
OT.......................... 3,098 95,206
===============================
Ways & Means:
Current Law:
BA.............................. 963,421 14,458,848
OT.............................. 962,271 14,455,530
Resolution Change:
BA.............................. -22,567 -1,298,202
OT.............................. -21,667 -1,291,946
-------------------------------
Total:
BA.......................... 940,854 13,160,646
OT.......................... 940,604 13,163,584
===============================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations
ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
(Subject to a General Limit of $28,852,000,000)
Payment to Postal Service
Employment and Training Administration
Education for the Disadvantaged
School Improvement Programs
Special Education
Career, Technical and Adult Education
Tenant-based Rental Assistance
Project-based Rental Assistance
VETERANS ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2015
(Subject to a Separate Limit of $55,634,227)
VA Medical Services
VA Medical Support and Compliance
VA Medical Facilities
____
Committee on Rules
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 3, 2013.
Chairman Paul Ryan,
Committee on the Budget, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Ryan: Thank you for your letter of May 31,
2013. I appreciate your desire and commitment to achieving a
final resolution of the Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 with the
Senate. Your leadership on the budget challenges facing the
Nation is unmatched.
I agree with you that, pending a conference report on the
budget, it is both timely and proper to ensure that we have
the necessary budget enforcement mechanisms in place as we
begin the annual appropriations process. Despite the fact
that the President's Budget was submitted more than two
months after the statutory deadline, we must move forward on
the annual appropriations process if we have any hope of
meeting the deadlines imposed by the end of the fiscal year.
To that end, I intend to recommend to the Committee on
Rules that we agree to your request for the inclusion of
budget enforcement language in the rule that will be
considered by the Committee later today. This will allow you
to continue your negotiations with the Senate and allow the
House to begin its work on the appropriations bills, which I
believe is a responsible approach.
Thank you again for your leadership.
Sincerely,
Pete Sessions.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule
for H.R. 2216, Military Construction/VA Appropriations act for Fy 2014.
I oppose the rule because it adheres to the draconian spending limits
imposed by the Ryan Budget resolution rather than more realistic and
responsible limits to be negotiated and agreed to by House and Senate
budget conferees.
Indeed, the Republican House leadership has refused for months to
appoint conferees empowered to reach a budget agreement that is fair,
balanced and would end sequestration.
I agree with President Obama that prior to consideration of
appropriations bills the House and Senate should first reach agreement
on an appropriate framework for all appropriations bills and one does
not harm our economy or require draconian cuts to middle-class
priorities.
Without such an agreement, House Republican appropriation bills will
result in: hundreds of thousands of low-income children losing access
to Head Start programs; tens of thousands of children with disabilities
losing federal funding for their special education teachers and aides;
thousands of federal agents who will not be able to secure the border,
enforce drug laws, combat violent crime or apprehend fugitives; and
thousands of scientists without medical grants to conduct research to
find new treatments and cures for diseases like breast cancer and
Alzheimer's.
As Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Border and Maritime
Security Subcommittee, I will continue working with my colleagues
across the aisle and in the Senate to ensure that our firefighters and
other first responders have the resources needed to keep the American
people safe.
But I oppose this rule and urge all Members to join me in voting
against it.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 243 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida
Strike Section 3, and insert the following new sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution 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 resolution
(H. Res. 174) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that the Speaker should immediately request a
conference and appoint conferees to complete work on a fiscal
year 2014 budget resolution with the Senate. The first
reading of the resolution shall be dispensed with. General
debate shall be confined to the resolution and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
After general debate the resolution shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of
consideration of the resolution for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble
to adoption 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 resolution, 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 resolution.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the resolution specified in section 3 of
this resolution.
____
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 Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
[[Page H3041]]
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.''
The Republican majority may 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.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. 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 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 193, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 186]
YEAS--229
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--193
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Campbell
Deutch
Franks (AZ)
Granger
Honda
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Rangel
Sanchez, Loretta
Slaughter
Watt
{time} 1430
Ms. ESHOO, Ms. SINEMA, and Messrs. FOSTER and McGOVERN changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. NUNNELEE 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 (Mr. Terry). The question is on the
resolution.
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. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 194, not voting 12, as follows:
[[Page H3042]]
[Roll No. 187]
YEAS--227
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--194
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Bachus
Campbell
Deutch
Granger
Honda
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Rangel
Sanchez, Loretta
Slaughter
Watt
Woodall
____________________