[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 124 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5684-H5694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 59, CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS 
                            RESOLUTION, 2014

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Joint Resolution 59 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 352

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 59) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 
     2014, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The joint resolution, as amended, shall be considered as 
     read. All points of order against provisions in the joint 
     resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution, as 
     amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time from the calendar 
     day of September 26, 2013, through the calendar day of 
     September 29, 2013, for the Speaker to entertain motions that 
     the House suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule 
     XV. The Speaker or his designee shall consult with the 
     Minority Leader or her designee on the designation of any 
     matter for consideration pursuant to this section.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Rochester 
(Ms. Slaughter), 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. COLE. 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 Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported 
a rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 59, the Continuing Appropriations 
Resolution for Fiscal Year 2014.
  The rule is a closed rule and provides for the consideration of a 
short-term continuing resolution, keeping the government funded until 
December 15, 2013. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally 
divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee of 
Appropriations.
  Additionally, the rule incorporates an amendment by Representative 
Scalise, which fully defunds ObamaCare and also ensures that the 
government prioritizes interest and principal payments on our national 
debt and Social Security payments in the event that the debt limit is 
reached. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Finally, the rule permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend 
the rules from September 26 to September 29.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend, Chairman Rogers, for 
bringing a bill to avoid a government shutdown to the Rules Committee. 
Within the Republican Conference, we've had a very spirited debate on 
this issue; however, it's led us to a good product.
  There are a number of things I like about this bill. First, it 
extends the funding for operations of all programs until December 15, 
allowing the Appropriations Committee the needed time to finish its 
work on the 12 full-year spending bills.
  Second, this continuing resolution adheres to the post-sequester caps 
of the Budget Control Act, maintaining our commitment to reduce the 
deficit.
  Third, this bill fully defunds ObamaCare.
  Mr. Speaker, it seems the closer that we get to the implementation of 
the Affordable Health Care Act, the more unpopular it becomes.
  Already, the President has agreed with Congress to make major changes 
to this legislation on seven different occasions. Additionally, he's 
delayed major provisions like the employer mandate unilaterally another 
seven times.
  If business is chafing under these mandates and in need of a delay, 
then surely the American people should be given the same relief. The 
continuing resolution provides them that relief.

[[Page H5685]]

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides certainty to our 
creditors that they will get paid. Some of my friends on the other side 
have called this the ``Pay China First Act''; however, nearly 70 
percent of our debt is owed domestically. This legislation would 
provide for the prioritization of U.S. bondholders and people on Social 
Security at the front of the line to be paid if the government hits its 
borrowing limit.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the responsible thing to do. Some have said that 
this is just brinksmanship and an attempt by Republicans to lead to a 
government shutdown. That could not be further from the truth. The 
Appropriations Committee has brought this bill to the floor explicitly 
to avoid the threat of a shutdown.
  It's a good bill, and I urge the support of the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if the House of Representatives fails to act, the 
government will shut down on October 1.

                              {time}  1415

  A government shutdown would result in the furlough of hundreds of 
thousands of government employees, stop the flow of Social Security 
checks, and hold up Medicare benefits for our seniors. In short, there 
are very real and very significant consequences to what we do here 
today.
  Given the stakes, one could reasonably expect the majority to avoid 
extremism and partisanship and allow this Chamber to keep the 
government open. But this bill doesn't do that. Unfortunately, the 
opposite is happening here today.
  Unable to pass 8 of 12 annual appropriations bill, the majority has 
been forced to resort to a continuing resolution--and this CR should 
have been clean, as the CR is in the Senate. But today's proposal 
includes a self-executing amendment to defund the Affordable Care Act 
and put medical decisions back into the hands of the insurance 
companies. And that will not go through the Senate. So we will, once 
again, go to the very brink of disaster, hoping that we can pull out of 
it while letting most Americans hang by their thumbs, wondering what 
we're going to do.
  As the newspaper The Hill wrote this morning, today's proposal makes 
``shutdowns more likely'' because the Affordable Care Act will never be 
repealed as long as President Obama is in office and the Democrats 
control the Senate.
  The fact of the matter is the Affordable Care Act is already 
delivering on its promise of lower health care costs and more secure 
health care. States are just 11 days away from opening online health 
care exchanges, where individuals will be able to compare health plans 
and purchase an insurance plan that fits their needs. In many cases, 
these exchanges will allow individuals to purchase health insurance 
cheaper than ever before.
  In my home State of New York, premiums for some insurance plans have 
already dropped by 50 percent. This week, Secretary Sebelius announced 
that many monthly premiums will be less than $100.
  Perhaps most importantly--not something I'm sure everybody knows--the 
Affordable Care Act flips the script and takes the power out of 
insurance companies' hands. Instead of having lifetime and annual caps 
on what the insurance company will spend on your health care, the 
Affordable Care Act enforces limits on what you will have to pay out-
of-pocket for your health care.
  Does everybody know that? Because when your constituents find it out, 
they're going to be bummed out at you for trying to kill it.
  For example, in 2015, those covered under a group health insurance 
plan will not have to pay more than $6,350 out of their pocket for 
medical procedures and medicine. That is such a gift. People will no 
longer have to go bankrupt to pay health bills. That is going to be 
covered from that point on. Once you've reached that limit, your 
insurer is going to pick the rest of it up. My constituents don't want 
to lose that. It's a landmark change and just one of many reasons why 
the majority's attempt at repeal will never become law.
  Today's legislation falls short when it comes to ending the 
devastating cuts within what we call the sequester. The sequester has 
been one of the most devastating policies ever implemented in the 
history of the United States. Just today, the head of the FBI said that 
the idea of having to get rid of 300 employees and putting all of his 
employees on 10-day furlough makes it almost impossible for him to run 
the FBI.
  Because of the sequester, tens of thousands of cancer screenings have 
been canceled at public health clinics right now, more than $1.6 
billion has been cut from the National Institutes of Health, and more 
than 70,000 children have been kicked out of Head Start. And over the 
next 12 months the CBO estimates that 1.6 million jobs will be lost 
because of the economic drag caused by the sequester.
  Last night, the Budget Committee ranking member, Chris Van Hollen, 
came to the Rules Committee and requested to have a vote on the House 
floor in order to end the sequester. That was the eighth time that his 
request has been denied by the Rules Committee. Given the chance for 
bipartisan cooperation and to rid ourselves of this plague that is so 
worrying and causing such devastation, the majority simply walked away.
  Finally, today's legislation also includes a proposal to protect some 
bondholders, including China, from any economic fallout that would 
occur if the majority refuses to lift the Nation's debt. This 
legislation has no place in a continuing resolution. Furthermore, it 
should never have been considered, for the faith and credit of the 
United States should never be in doubt.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House is sworn to uphold the 
Constitution of the United States and to ``promote the general 
welfare.'' And that's a far cry from what we're doing here today, not 
only in this bill but in the one that preceded this, where we're 
cutting $40 billion out of food that will affect, as you heard before, 
veterans, the elderly, Meals on Wheels, and school nutrition. It's not 
what we are and not what we do.
  Everybody knows, though, that what is happening here today is what 
every mother knows. When a child has a tantrum--and a tantrum is being 
had here over health care--you slap a pacifier in the mouth. That's 
exactly what trying to redo the health care bill is--it's a temporary 
tantrum retarder so that we can get by today. There is no real plan. 
It's just how will we get by today.
  After the majority passes this bill, the Senate will take the 
legislation. With a pure majority, they can remove the partisan attacks 
within it and they will send us back a clean CR if they can get 60 
votes, which we will have to pass or chaos will ensue. By the time we 
get around to all this--which we could be doing today--we're on the 
edge of a cliff.
  In the meantime, the majority's refusal to work on a balanced plan to 
create jobs, grow the economy, and to invest in our future, which is 
such an important thing that's been neglected, and stop the brain drain 
being caused by the sequester is hurting our economy and threatens a 
government shutdown.
  With time running out, the decision to play politics has dire 
consequences. Think about it for just a moment. We've gotten reports 
about substandard bridges and roads and the neglect of the railway. We 
could put all those people to work that would be needed just to rebuild 
those, and spend some money on ourselves, instead of $2 billion a week 
on the wars, as we did in Iraq for 10 years.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against today's rule and the 
underlying legislation so we can consider bipartisan solutions instead 
of games. I can promise you that our side stands ready and willing. We 
have nothing to do with any of this today. No Democrats were involved. 
We want to be a part of it as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As usual, my friend makes a skillful and thoughtful case in defense 
of the Affordable Care Act. The problem is that the jury is the 
American people. They're still not convinced. They haven't been 
convinced for 4 years.

[[Page H5686]]

  Repeatedly, poll after poll after poll has shown this to be an 
extraordinarily unpopular piece of legislation. In fact, I'd suggest my 
friends probably lost their majority in their pursuit of this 
legislation. It was their continued defense of it that may well have 
cost them the opportunity to regain that majority when the President 
was reelected.

  If you look at the evidence, it's not only unpopular as we approach 
the implementation date, but more of the people that supported it are 
asking either for delay or for it to be overturned altogether. We had a 
lot of labor unions recently march down to the White House and request 
the President--these are people that helped pass the bill--to please 
fix it, change it, delay it, do something--it's going to hurt our 
members and their families.
  The President himself acknowledged this bill isn't working very well. 
We're going to have to delay it for a year for all sorts of businesses.
  We've been told repeatedly that this was some day going to become 
popular. But I would suggest the experience of not weeks, not months, 
but years has taught us that it's never going to be popular with the 
American people.
  My good friend also talked a little bit about the sequester. I think 
that's worth visiting again because we probably have some common ground 
there. I would suggest that we ought to get rid of the sequester. But 
let's remember how it got here and what it was designed to do.
  Sequester is in law because of the President of the United States. 
He's the one who proposed it. He's the one who advocated for it. He's 
the one who signed it into law. We all agree it's not a very artfully 
drawn piece of legislation, but the President insisted on it.
  We twice in this House acted to provide opportunities to get rid of 
sequester. Neither time did our friends on the other side pick up those 
opportunities, either in this Chamber, the Senate, nor the President of 
the United States.
  We are more than willing to renegotiate sequester. We are not willing 
to give up the savings. We would like to spread those cuts and savings 
over the entire budget. And we think we can work through the problems 
without surrendering the savings unilaterally or raising taxes, another 
thing which we don't think is the appropriate way to deal with this 
particular piece of legislation.
  My friend talked about food stamps, which are not directly relevant 
for our debate, but it's worth thinking for a minute that, under 
President Bush, the amount of money we spent on food stamps doubled. 
And under President Obama it has doubled again. In other words, 100 
percent and another 100 percent.
  All our bill is suggesting is perhaps 5 percent of that massive 
increase. At a time when unemployment is coming down and the economy is 
supposedly on the mend, we could, through reforms, reclaim and save. 
That's all this is.
  Finally, there was some discussion of the Senate and what it will and 
won't do. I learned a long time ago not to try to predict what the 
Senate of the United States is going to do. Some of my colleagues, 
frankly, on our side of the aisle have been asking for an opportunity 
to express their opinion on ObamaCare and have an opportunity to get in 
the fight. I think they ought to have that opportunity. Frankly, I 
suspect there are some Democratic senators who may be on the ballot for 
the first time since voting for ObamaCare that might want to reconsider 
their positions and if not defund, perhaps delay.
  But in any event, our job here is to do what the American people sent 
us here to do. That's, number one, to fund the government, which this 
bill certainly does. And, number two, in the case of the majority, to 
repeal, reform, delay, or somehow postpone ObamaCare. That's what we're 
doing.
  We'll send this over to the Senate. We'll see what our colleagues can 
do over there. They've got some remarkable tools that we don't have. 
They have things like cloture. It doesn't exist on our side of the 
aisle. They have things like the filibuster. It doesn't exist over 
here.
  Again, the political situation suggests they may be able to find 
allies. Regardless, they certainly deserve the opportunity to have the 
fight and debate and discussion that they requested. I think this House 
is acting wisely and well in giving that chance.
  Once they've made their decision--and we're not here to express the 
will of the Senate, and they're certainly not there to express the will 
of the House--they'll send something back. At that time I have no doubt 
that we'll pick it up and react to it and try to respond in an 
appropriate fashion.
  But nothing is going to begin until we pass something out of this 
House. That's what we're trying to do today.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
rule.
  Last night, the Rules Committee spent nearly 3 hours discussing the 
merits of health reform, food assistance in the farm bill, and U.S. 
debt held by foreign entities. Yet very little time was devoted to one 
of the primary jobs of the legislative branch which this bill 
addresses: appropriating funds.
  This rule adds a provision to dictate to the President in what order 
to pay the Nation's bills in case of default and another provision to 
defund the Affordable Care Act. The President issued a veto threat this 
morning, based on these extraneous provisions.
  We should be focused as sharply as a laser beam on the American 
economy and jobs. This brinksmanship on the budget and the debt limit 
will force the stock market to plummet and businesses to freeze hiring. 
Continuing sequestration, as this bill does, will cost our economy up 
to 1.6 million jobs over the next year, according to CBO. That is why I 
join my Rules Committee colleague and urge the House to reject the 
previous question to get a vote on the Democratic amendment to stop the 
sequester job loss.
  Voting to add politically motivated provisions to the CR is akin to 
voting to shut down the government. And shutting down the government 
means shutting down the Nation's economy. Nonetheless, Republicans 
place their ideological crusade against health care reform ahead of the 
American economy and jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I want to assure my good friend we have no intention and no desire to 
shut down the government. Absolutely not. If that was our aim, we 
wouldn't be bringing a bill to the floor whose main purpose is to keep 
government funding open.

                              {time}  1430

  We want to take the 75-day window, roughly, and sit down and 
negotiate with our friends and make sure--particularly my friend and 
our chairman, Mr. Rogers, have an opportunity to work through the 
appropriations process. So that is not our intention.
  As for the President's concern about sequester, again I will just 
remark that this was his idea. This was his proposal. He signed it into 
law. He is not an innocent bystander in this process. So if he would 
like to sit down and redo it, we are more than happy to do that; but 
he's not going to dictate the outcome from the White House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my fellow member 
of the Rules Committee, my classmate, the distinguished physician from 
the great State of Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, of course we are here today to discuss the rule that 
will allow the continuing resolution to come to the floor; and coupled 
with the continuing resolution is language that will forever affect the 
funding for what is known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
Act. Let us pause for a moment to remember how the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act was visited upon the United States of America.
  This was not something that was a product of any House hearing. This 
was not something that was a product of the House in any way. This was 
a product of the Senate Finance Committee; developed between 
Thanksgiving and Christmas in 2009; put on the floor of the Senate on 
what I like to describe as the ``darkest evening of the year'' in a

[[Page H5687]]

cloture vote, December 21, 2009; followed by a vote by the Senate on 
Christmas Eve.
  Many of you will remember that day. There was a snowstorm descending 
upon Washington, D.C. The Senators wanted to get home, they wanted to 
get out of town, so they simply voted one after the other until they 
got the 60 votes for the Affordable Care Act and then left town under 
the cover of darkness. They never thought that what they were voting on 
on Christmas Eve 2009 would ever become law.
  But a funny thing happened. A dog ate my homework, and I turned in 
the rough draft and it accidentally got signed by the President 3 
months later. That's where we are today. That's why this law has been 
so difficult to implement. That's why the American people have never 
embraced this. And now more recent polling in the past several days 
shows that the American people actually reject what is being visited 
upon them.
  A headline in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, Walgreens has told 
their employees, well, guess what, we're not going to pay for coverage 
any longer; we will give you money. Good luck in the exchanges, and 
we'll see you on the other side. UPS dropping family coverage. The 
unions wrote the minority leader in the House of Representatives and 
the majority leader in the Senate and said: please help us. Please help 
us. We've helped you. We've manned your phone banks; we walked 
neighborhoods for you; we got you elected. The administration is not 
listening to us. You have broken the contract with the middle class by 
voiding the 40-hour work week. By redefining full-time employment as 30 
hours, you have essentially broken the back of the middle class.
  The American people, regardless of political persuasion, are crying 
out for our help. Fortunately, today and tomorrow, we are going to be 
able to provide them that help.
  We are frequently hearing about 40 or 41 votes to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act. I'll tell you what, as many as it takes. But seven 
of those efforts to restrict and repeal portions of the Affordable Care 
Act, seven of those have been passed by the Senate and signed by the 
President. So it's not entirely a fruitless effort.
  But probably more telling is the President himself, who has, whenever 
it suited him, simply jettisoned a portion of the law--a law that he 
signed in March of 2010 that we all remember. Those of us who were in 
the House at that time, those of us who watched news shows during the 
summer of 2009 and on into 2010, the cry that went up: we've got to do 
something about people with preexisting conditions. There are just far 
too many people in the country who are frozen out of the insurance 
market because of an unfortunate medical diagnosis.
  But the reality is the large group plans in this country have open 
enrollment periods. So the preexisting condition conundrum generally is 
a problem for people in the individual and small group market. How do I 
know this? How do I know that this number is much more manageable than 
the 8 to 12 million people that then-Speaker Pelosi and the President 
of the United States talked about? Because on the eve of the Supreme 
Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, when I thought it was going 
to be important for this House to respond to those people who had the 
Federal preexisting program taken away from them by a Supreme Court 
action, I did an investigation: how many people had been signed up in 
the so-called ``Federal PCIP program.'' The number at that time was 
65,000; by the end of the year, it was nearly 100,000.
  Then, Mr. Speaker, something really strange happened. On February 1 
of this year, less than 2 years after the Affordable Care Act was 
signed into law, people showing up at the teller's window over at the 
Department of Health and Human Services saying I would like to buy my 
insurance in the Federal preexisting pool were told, sorry, that window 
is closed. We will only take care of the people who are already 
enrolled. If you're coming in today wanting that kind of help, so 
sorry, program terminated. There were no headlines in that regard. 
There were no cries of anguish that the President had stopped providing 
coverage for people with preexisting conditions. You had people who 
were waiting the 6-month waiting period--they were required by law to 
wait and not have insurance--show up for this Federal preexisting pool. 
But what did they hear when they got to the window? Sorry, sister, 
window is closed. Go somewhere else. Eleven months from now you will 
have the full Elysian Fields of ObamaCare. And maybe if you can make it 
until then, you'll be fine.
  Well, what else went by the wayside? Remember the discussion about: 
we're going to put a cap on out-of-pocket expenses so no longer will 
people have to pay excessive copays and deductibles. Oh, by the way, 
they postponed that for a year. That was supposed to start January 1, 
2014. Now it's been put off until January 1, 2015.
  The Small Business Health Exchange, supposed to open--we are going to 
get the power of competition in the small group market--was supposed to 
open January 1, 2014; delayed for a year, January 1, 2015.
  Who can forget the Tuesday evening before the 4th of July holiday 
this year when on a blog post Valerie Jarrett put out that the employer 
mandate was in fact suspended for a year. Three days later they had to 
say that, oh, yeah, by the way, all of those reporting requirements 
that we were requiring under the employer mandate, well, we're not 
going to require those either. We're just going to trust people to tell 
us the truth when they come in to sign up for benefits, not that any 
Federal program administered by the Department of Health and Human 
Services has ever had a problem with fraud or misrepresentation.
  Probably one of the most telling things is the lack of anyone within 
the agency to be able to answer a simple yes or no question about: Will 
the exchanges be open for enrollment on October 1? The head of the 
Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight was in our 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations just this morning. I asked 
that question; a simple yes or no, sir, is all that I require. I got a 
long answer that, yes, there will be Web sites; yes, you will be able 
to access Web sites. Yes or no, will people be able to go to register 
for insurance on October 1? They could not give me a yes or no answer.
  Second question: What about will people be able to sign up for the 
insurance on January 1 as advertised, yes or no? Again, unable to give 
a yes or no answer to that question.
  Will people be able to buy insurance cheaper as the President 
suggested when he was running for office? Unable to answer with a yes 
or no.
  These are the problems we have, Mr. Speaker. We cannot get people 
from the agencies to come and give us a simple answer, a simple direct 
answer to a simple direct question. No wonder the American people are 
full of questions about this. No wonder they are full of fear about 
what is just around the corner.
  This rule vote will allow the House to vote on a bill that keeps the 
government funded and open until December 15 of this year. But that 
vote, very importantly, allows people's voices to be heard that they do 
not trust what has been quoted in the Affordable Care Act. They feel 
that the investment has been a bad investment so far, and they are 
telling us: don't sink one more dime into this.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor-HHS.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this cynical 
and reckless rule and the underlying funding bill. This is neither a 
serious nor a good faith effort to address the fundamental 
responsibilities in our budget. Instead, the majority is trying to 
hamstring the government. They want it to be broken, and they want to 
make it seem like it cannot address real problems. That is why now they 
are committed to pushing us headlong into a government shutdown whereby 
they would leave the American people on their own in what are 
difficult, difficult economic times.
  This rule does not responsibly address our budget in any way. 
Instead, the majority is using the resolution to ensure that their 
dangerously low funding levels are the ceiling for future budget 
negotiations, and to try for over the 40th time to thwart the law of

[[Page H5688]]

the land and to derail the Affordable Care Act, which denies affordable 
health care to families.
  We passed the Affordable Care bill in the House of Representatives. 
We passed it in the United States Senate. The President signed the 
bill. The Supreme Court upheld the bill. But now this crowd wants to 
stop it by not providing the money to fund it and they want to repeal 
it.
  The American public says: don't repeal the Affordable Care Act. Don't 
do that. Let's implement it. And, yes, if there are fixes to be made, 
let's do that. Because right now children, their parents can no longer 
be told by an insurance company we won't provide insurance coverage for 
your child that might have asthma, or autism, or anything else because 
we have regarded that in the past as a preexisting condition. It is no 
longer a preexisting condition. Quite frankly, what they want to do is 
to turn your health care insurance coverage back to the insurance 
companies that can say no. I say to them: get over it. It's the law of 
the land. Let's implement it and make the changes.
  And while this majority plays games, the deep and dangerous across-
the-board cuts which they are trying to enshrine in this bill are 
threatening our economy, our health, our well-being, and the future of 
American families.
  Both the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Federal Reserve 
Chairman Ben Bernanke argued that these across-the-board cuts will cost 
us as many as 750,000 jobs. That's not all.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, more than 57,000 children losing access to 
early learning through Head Start, you can't make that up. When you've 
lost that Head Start slot, that child can't go to school; that learning 
opportunity is done. That is about the future of that youngster.
  They would cut off biomedical research that saves lives. I'm a cancer 
survivor. They would cut off the research that provides us with the 
opportunity to save people's lives in this Nation.
  They cut money for the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for 
Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration. Instructional 
services are being sharply reduced. Education cuts. There are similar 
cuts in place to every other national priority we care about--court 
systems, food safety, transportation, you name it. Instead of fixing 
these cuts, the majority is trying to make it worse for American 
families.
  This resolution is not a serious attempt at addressing the budget; it 
is an ideological charade. Its purpose is to shut down the government 
and leave the American people on their own. I urge my colleagues to 
take no part of this and reject it.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
great friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the distinguished 
Member from the great State of Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. I want to thank the young gentleman from Oklahoma for 
his service not only to the Rules Committee, but also the 
Appropriations Committee, that he very aptly serves this honorable body 
well.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm not surprised that we're seeing the hysteria that we 
are. The people who are screaming the loudest are the people that 
ensured, through no--trust me, no other reason, other than the things 
that they voted for, no unintended consequence but to have this country 
go from a $9 trillion to a $17 trillion deficit in just 5 short years.

                              {time}  1445

  They made sure that this country has become unemployed, that we no 
longer really have careers, that there is not only hundreds of waivers 
that have been given to the political friends of this President. 
Uncertainty is all across this great Nation about employment. People 
who want to sign paychecks want more employees. It is rampant across 
America of uncertainty and answers that cannot be given about this 
massive government-run health care plan that is getting ready to face 
this Nation in just a few short weeks.
  That's why the Republican Party is on the floor of the House of 
Representatives today. That's why we are here to say we are going to 
make sure this government gets funded.
  But the main culprit of uncertainty of hugely rising insurance and 
health care costs is ObamaCare. It is not an Affordable Care Act. By 
the way, I think it works about this same way in Moscow as it does in 
Havana. It is an out-of-control health care system that will diminish 
America's greatest health care system.
  So why we are here today is to join House Republicans, Mr. Speaker, 
in our efforts to prevent ObamaCare from becoming reality. Since 
ObamaCare was proposed in the House in 2010, I and my Republican 
colleagues, not just from north Texas, as you heard here from Dr. 
Michael Burgess, but people from Oklahoma and all across this country, 
stood firmly to say that we believe that our fight against a government 
health care-run system is exactly what the American people want.
  My Republican colleagues and I in the House are doing everything we 
can to stop ObamaCare through voting to repeal it, defund it, and to 
dismantle it. I am proud of that effort. ObamaCare is bad for jobs. 
It's bad for jobs all across this country. That means it's bad for our 
economy and it's bad for our Nation's health care systems.
  Doctors all across this country are united, as well as consumers, to 
say we must do something about it. Up to 60 percent of Americans today 
are worried about the quality of health care and how they will pay for 
this expensive product that Democrats have brought to America.
  ObamaCare will jeopardize 3.2 million jobs across this country in the 
franchise industry alone. These are people that before had an 
opportunity to put food on their table that now are having to struggle 
to pay for this ObamaCare.
  Additionally, hardly a week goes by that we do not hear stories about 
companies having to force their employees off their employee and off 
their preferred employer provider insurance. President Obama stood 
right in front of where you are, Mr. Speaker, just a few years ago, and 
said that famous, what has turned into a lie: If you have health 
insurance, you can keep your health insurance. That is not true.
  Today, we are learning that this is not just the case with just a few 
people, but also just, effective yesterday, Walgreen's has announced 
that they will move 160,000 of their employees off their current 
coverage.
  That is why Republicans are on the floor of the House of 
Representatives today. We are trying to pass this same message to our 
colleagues in the other body so that they are able to take the fight so 
that Americans understand that we not only hear them, but we are 
willing to do something about it.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me time and 
I end my speech today by saying this: that Republicans will continue to 
fight for jobs, better health care, and an opportunity for every single 
American to have a job to make this country even stronger.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say 
that, while I did not make a Federal case out of it here, I deeply 
regret that my colleague has disparaged the President of the United 
States.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)--I 
wish I could give him an hour and 40 minutes to counter what we have 
heard, but unfortunately I can only give him 3--the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I need that hour to correct so much 
misinformation. But I've got to say something to my friend from Texas, 
who has now left the floor, or is about to leave the floor, and just 
remind him: during the last 18 months of the Bush administration, we 
lost 4,491,000 jobs. Over the last 42 consecutive months, in the 
private sector, we have gained 7,452,000 jobs. That, my friend, is an 
11.5 million turnaround to the benefit of workers. Have we done enough? 
We have not.
  Now, let me speak to this perverse rule. Let me first say to my 
friend, Mr. Cole, who like so many of his Republican colleagues 
continues to say the President signed this cloture bill. He did. Why 
did he sign it? Because our Republican friends threatened, as they are 
doing today, to put the United States of America into default for the 
first time in history if he did not. That was the threat. It's the 
threat again today.

[[Page H5689]]

  Mr. Cole, my friend, would not really support that policy, I am 
convinced. He does not have to have a colloquy with me, but he would 
not support that.
  The sequester, however, he did support in the cut, cap, and balance 
bill that was totally voted on by Republicans, a few less than my hand 
of Democrats, who said that they wanted the sequester as the fallback 
position. They got it. They got it because that's the only deal they 
would make.
  The President doesn't want sequester, I don't want sequester, and the 
chairman of his committee doesn't want sequester. Let me assert, 
without undermining his credibility, I don't think Tom Cole wants 
sequester. By the way, I have a quote here which indicates that Eric 
Cantor, the majority leader, doesn't think sequester is so hot either.
  Here is what Hal Rogers said, however--and I would like to debate 
this for some period of time, but I don't have the time: With this 
action, we pulled the transportation bill. The appropriations process 
is broken, irrelevant, dismissed.
  By the way, when they marked up their first three bills that they 
passed in the House, they didn't use their sequester number. They used 
the number that the Senate is marking to because they knew their number 
doesn't work, their number that is included in the bill that would be 
the result of this rule.
  Mr. Cole, you are my friend and I have great respect for you and I 
think you believe that, but here is what Hal Rogers said: With this 
action, pulling the transportation bill, the House has declined to 
proceed on the implementation of the very budget it adopted just 3 
months ago.
  Mr. Rogers--conservative, Kentucky, Republican, chairman of the 
Appropriations--said: I believe the House has made its choice.
  Sequestration and its unrealistic and ill-conceived discretionary 
cuts must be brought to an end.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. He then went on to say: The House, Senate, and White House 
must come together as soon as possible on a comprehensive compromise.
  This bill represents zero compromise.
  Come together on a comprehensive compromise that repeals 
sequestration, takes the Nation off this lurching path from fiscal 
crisis to fiscal crisis, reduces our deficits and debt, and provides a 
realistic--realistic--top line discretionary spending level to fund the 
government in a responsible and attainable way.
  I've been here for some period of time. I know about compromise. My 
side needs to compromise. There is no compromise yet on the other side 
of the aisle, ladies and gentlemen--none, zero. And I say lamentably, 
and I say this with great sadness, in my view, there are only about 60 
on your side of the aisle who want this hard-line approach, this 
unrealistic approach, this approach that the Senator from North 
Carolina who served in this House and on the Appropriations Committee 
said was unreasonable.
  Now, let me tell you what the chief executive of The Heritage 
Foundation said: We are pushing back on these gimmicks.
  Who are the gimmicks? Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor, saying we'll pass 
it, we'll get a vote on health care. If they reject it, we will still 
fund government.
  Your side wants to defund government. It may not want to shut the 
door on government. It wants to defund it badly and undermine our 
national security, our economy, and the operations of the government. 
Every member of the Appropriations Committee knows that to be the case. 
No member of the Appropriations Committee, in my view, Republican or 
Democrat, believes that the sequestration levels that are in this bill 
that this rule provides for are viable. They will not work. They will 
hurt Americans.
  But what does Michael Needham say about these gimmicks and about 
pursuing this? He says: I think it's exciting. It's a game.
  It's a game that will hurt America.
  Reject this rule, reject this bill, let's have real compromise.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I know that Bob Woodward is a widely read author. I can look at the 
book sales that he racks up and know that there's a lot of people in 
this town that read what he has to say. But evidently my friends on the 
other side have never read what he had to say.
  Let's be clear: sequester was the President's idea and proposal. Now, 
where I agree with the President is that I think we need to save money 
in the Federal budget. Sequester was supposed to be a trigger to force 
that negotiation.
  Unfortunately, for whatever reason, I was not a member of the 
supercommittee; but I think all of them worked hard and in good faith, 
and I cast no aspersion, but they didn't get there. So sequester, the 
President's recommended method, happened.
  We would still like to sit down with the President and our friends on 
the other side and renegotiate where those cuts occur. Sequester is 
about $85 billion on an annual basis in a $3.5 trillion budget that is 
roughly $700 billion out of balance as it is. So the idea that we can't 
find 2.5 percent if we negotiated over the entire budget I think is 
probably, frankly, not a very sustainable proposition. We could do that 
without some of the distortions we are going through now. We would be 
more than happy to do that with my friends on the other side, and 
certainly with the President of the United States.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE. No, I will hold my time, but I will yield in a moment.
  But let's be clear whose idea this was and who has not put a solution 
on the table. I could go ad nauseam into cuts that did not have to 
occur in the Defense Department that have occurred because the 
administration insisted on them, but that's for another time and 
another debate.
  I agree with my friend that this is a time to come to a deal. That's 
what we are trying to do, actually, in this rule and in the underlying 
legislation: set aside a 75-day window to sit down and let the 
appropriators and those above them come to an agreement, and let's get 
out of this cycle--I agree with my friend--of short-term fixes and 
deals and let's move back to what I know my friend wants to do, and 
that's to establish regular order.
  But to do that, we have to start the process; we have to begin now. 
Let's pass this resolution. It reflects the will of the majority. Let's 
move it to the Senate and let's see what the Senate is prepared to do. 
They will send us something back. Then, hopefully, at the end of that 
process, a CR will be arrived at.
  My friend alluded to the fact that people want to shut down the 
government. That's the last thing we want to do. I thank my friend for 
accurately putting my position out there on both government shutdown 
and on default. I've made it abundantly clear I think those are bad 
ideas. I thought they were bad ideas.
  By the way, Tom Coburn quotes me in his book in 1995 telling him not 
to do it. I was his political consultant back then. So I have never 
thought this was an appropriate tactic in government. I don't think we 
need to do it now.
  But let's do that, and at the same time let's give the Senate an 
opportunity to vote up or down, whatever they want to do, on ObamaCare. 
We've gotten to do it multiple times. They seem to be anxious to have 
the opportunity. I think they should. But they will send us back a 
product, and I'm sure we will respond.
  With that, I yield to my friend if he had a point he wanted to make.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I might say not only have I read Bob Woodward's book; I 
invited Bob Woodward into my office and we discussed this assertion 
that you and others like to refer to ad nauseam, very frankly. Does the 
gentleman agree that before that was ever suggested by Jack Lew to 
Harry Reid as a possible way to getting us not to default on our debt 
that you and the overwhelming majority, all but eight of your 
colleagues, voted for your cut, cap, and balance bill which had within 
it in July of 2011 a sequester so that this was a proposal that you put 
in legislative action?

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. COLE. In reclaiming my time, it's certainly true that we've had 
multiple proposals to try and limit spending. We walked in with a $1.4 
trillion

[[Page H5690]]

deficit, so we thought maybe we ought to try and bring it down a little 
bit. Is it the exact form of this sequester? Absolutely not. No 
Republican ever came up with a sequester and had 50 percent of the cuts 
coming out of defense. So, in that sense, I don't think you can equate 
that.
  Regardless, let's not argue over history here for a minute; although, 
again, just for the record, I, too, have had Bob Woodward in my office, 
and I actually had him sign 60 of those books, which I gave to my 
colleagues, because I thought it was such an interesting look, and the 
players and the process are still the same.
  The bottom line: let's pass this legislation. It's going to move out 
of the House. Let's let the Senate act. Then let's see what they send 
back to us, and let's act in turn.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE. I yield just quickly to the gentleman from Maryland because 
I'm running low on time, and I do have other speakers.
  Mr. HOYER. Does the gentleman agree with me that the sequester is 
irrational?
  Mr. COLE. I certainly wouldn't agree if it yields the cuts, but I 
think the structure of it is inappropriate, and it's flawed.
  Mr. HOYER. And we ought not to continue with it?
  Mr. COLE. We ought to repeal it and get savings across the entire 
budget. I think that's what we should do.
  Mr. HOYER. I am glad the gentleman agrees.
  Mr. COLE. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rob Andrews.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I have not had Bob Woodward in my office, 
but I have had in my office a guy who remodels kitchens for a living. 
He told me that, even though the economy has picked up a little bit, 
it's still not as good as it needs to be, and his concern is the one 
that I bring to the floor here today.
  I believe that the majority is putting the country on the perilous 
path to a government shutdown with this vote, and the government 
shutdown is bad enough. It's bad enough that, on October 1, I think 
it's now likely that the people who inspect our food, that the people 
who now help pursue criminals at the FBI and that the people who run 
our National Guard Armories won't be showing up for work because of the 
government shutdown. That's bad enough. The problem here is not just a 
government shutdown--it's a shutdown of the economy. That's what this 
causes.
  The way the American economy works is, when a person at the USDA or 
the FBI gets a paycheck, he goes out and he has his kitchen remodeled. 
The kitchen remodeler is then more likely to buy a house, so the real 
estate broker is more likely to earn a commission. Then she is more 
likely to buy a car, so the car salesman is more likely to earn his 
commission, and he's more likely to go buy a refrigerator. The person 
running the appliance store is more likely to hire more people at the 
store, and more truck drivers have work in delivering the appliances. 
On it goes or on it doesn't go.
  When the sequester was locked in, economists in this country 
predicted that a third of the projected economic growth wouldn't 
happen. They were right. When the latest growth figures came out, 
instead of growing at about 2.5 percent, the economy grew at 1.7. It's 
not a mystery as to why. The problem here is not simply the government 
shutdown--it's the shutdown of the economy that this represents. This 
bill will probably pass the House. It will not pass the Senate. It 
represents an obsession with the health care law rather than good faith 
negotiation.
  We should begin those good faith negotiations right now. We should 
have on the floor right now a proposal that Mr. Van Hollen has made for 
a very long time that says: let's get rid of the sequester for a period 
of time; let's not lay off the person at the National Guard Armory or 
the FBI or the USDA; and let's replace the spending cuts with a fair 
and honest set of proposals that would include things like taking tax 
breaks away from oil companies that are making billions of dollars a 
year.
  We are not getting a chance to vote on that today or tomorrow, and I 
suspect I know the reason why--because it would pass. It would keep the 
government running. It would further reduce the deficit. It would put 
more Americans back to work--but it doesn't fit the political script of 
the majority.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members that the 
gentleman from Oklahoma has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from New York has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COLE. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have, 
from time to time, wondered about where the business community is on 
this issue, so I would like to insert for the Record a letter from the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which notes, as ``the world's largest 
business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million 
businesses . . . '' it favors the passage of H.J. Res. 59, the 
Continuing Appropriations Resolution for 2014, to ensure the 
uninterrupted funding of the Federal Government into the next fiscal 
year and to defund ObamaCare.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                             Washington, D.C., September 18, 2013.
       To The Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation representing the interests of more than three 
     million businesses and organizations of all sizes, sectors, 
     and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry 
     associations, and dedicated to promoting, protecting and 
     defending America's free enterprise system, urges the House 
     of Representatives to pass H.J. Res. 59, the ``Continuing 
     Appropriations Resolution, 2014,'' to ensure the 
     uninterrupted funding of the federal government into the next 
     fiscal year at spending levels consistent with P.L. 112-25, 
     the Budget Control Act of 2011.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce fully recognizes the 
     importance of restraining federal spending, both 
     discretionary spending and mandatory spending, to reduce 
     federal budget deficits, contain the growth of federal debt, 
     and thereby re-establish fiscal discipline in the near-term 
     and for the long haul. However, as the Department of Labor's 
     recent lackluster jobs report reminds us, the U.S. economy 
     continues to underperform, reinforcing the need for the 
     federal government to preserve its normal operations pending 
     a successful outcome of broader budgetary reforms. It is not 
     in the best interest of the U.S. business community or the 
     American people to risk even a brief government shutdown that 
     might trigger disruptive consequences or raise new policy 
     uncertainties washing over the U.S. economy.
       Likewise, the U.S. Chamber respectfully urges the House of 
     Representatives to raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner 
     and thus eliminate any question of threat to the full faith 
     and credit of the United States government. Treasury 
     Secretary Jacob Lew has indicated the Treasury may exhaust 
     its borrowing capacity and cash management tools as early as 
     mid-October.
       The nation faces many serious fiscal issues on which the 
     Congress and the President have thus far yet to reach 
     agreement. These issues include correcting the unaffordable 
     path of entitlement spending to stabilize federal finances 
     and the need for fundamental tax reform to strengthen the 
     American economy. These issues also include the need to 
     correct the many grave deficiencies in the Affordable Care 
     Act. The Chamber believes each of these and related issues 
     demand immediate attention. The Chamber also asks the 
     Congress to work to clear the individual spending bills so 
     that the improvements and changes reflected in this year's 
     work may be signed into law.
       It is readily apparent none of these important issues are 
     ripe for resolution. We therefore urge the House to act 
     promptly to pass a Continuing Resolution to fund the 
     government and to raise the debt ceiling, and then to return 
     to work on these other vital issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                  R. Bruce Josten.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to finally let the House vote on 
Mr. Van Hollen's proposal to replace the sequester with a sort of 
balanced deficit reduction plan that bipartisan panels of experts have 
all recommended.
  To discuss this bill, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the 
House Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend, the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, it is simply reckless for our Republican colleagues to 
say they

[[Page H5691]]

will shut down the United States Government unless we shut down the 
Affordable Care Act, a law which is already providing protections to 
millions of children in this country who have preexisting conditions--
like asthma, like pediatric cancer, like diabetes--and to millions of 
seniors on Medicare who have high drug costs; but what's also 
irresponsible and undemocratic is that the Republican majority has 
refused to allow us even a vote on a plan to replace the sequester.
  Now, what's the sequester?
  The sequester is Washington speak for a job-killing mechanism. It's 
meat-ax, immediate, across-the-board cuts that are doing damage to our 
economy. You don't have to take my word for it. The independent, 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which is the referee around 
here, says that, at this time next year, we could have up to 1.6 
million fewer jobs in this country as a result of that sequester. By 
this time next year, we could see economic growth cut in half as a 
result of the sequester.
  Look, the good news is the economy is growing, and the bad news is 
that it's growing very slowly. The last thing the American people need 
is a self-inflicted wound by this Congress that slows down the economy 
and puts fewer people back to work, but that's what the sequester does.
  We should do something about it, which is why the Democrats have a 
proposal to replace it, to replace it with targeted cuts over a period 
of time and, as Mr. Andrews said, targeted cuts to big tax breaks, like 
oil subsidies. If you do that, you will eliminate the bad parts of the 
sequester, but you actually get the deficit reduction part. In fact, 
our plan would give you even more deficit reduction during the period 
of this plan.
  We've tried eight times now to get a vote on that--just a vote. In 
this House, the so-called ``people's House,'' we haven't been able to 
get a vote. I hear our Republican colleagues say they don't like the 
sequester--I hear them say that to their constituents--but what they 
don't tell them is they've denied us the chance to have a vote on a 
plan to replace the sequester seven times.
  Mr. Speaker, guess what else they don't tell them?
  How many times during this Congress have our Republican colleagues 
put a plan on this floor to replace the sequester? Zero. Zero times.
  Now, Mr. Cole, I have to correct you because we have now a concrete 
plan to replace the sequester for 2014. It's right here.
  We'd like a vote on that plan, Mr. Speaker. We'd like a vote. We 
think Members should be held accountable when they go back home and 
tell their constituents they want to get rid of the sequester and then 
come here to the United States Congress and deny us an opportunity to 
have that vote, deny the people of this country the right of 
accountability for their Members of Congress.
  So let's take action today. Let's vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, and then this House can have a chance to vote on our plan to 
replace the sequester and get rid of the drag on the economy, which, 
according to the CBO, is going to cost us up to 1.6 million jobs. 
That's democracy. That's just letting this House work its will. What 
I'm afraid of, Mr. Speaker, is that our colleagues are afraid to have 
that vote in the light of day. There is no other explanation for why 
they would be denying the American people that opportunity.
  So what I ask is: either say to your constituents you really do like 
the sequester, and you support the sequester, and you don't mind the 
jobs that are being lost as a result of the sequester, or vote for our 
sequester replacement, or at least come to the floor of this House with 
one of your own because, right now, we've tried eight times for a vote, 
and our Republican colleagues have tried zero times in this Congress to 
replace that sequester.
  So we ask that you vote against the previous question and give the 
American people the chance to hold us accountable for what we say at 
home. Hold us accountable right here in the Halls of this Chamber.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if my colleague has more 
speakers. If not, I am ready to close.
  Mr. COLE. I am prepared to close whenever my colleague would like to 
do that.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Cole.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, as my Democrat colleagues and I have stated, 
instead of proposing a clean and noncontroversial continuing 
resolution, today the majority wishes to bring a proposal to the floor 
that would defund ObamaCare--their favorite--and prioritize bond 
payments to China in the event of financial default.
  This type of legislative maneuver unnecessarily injects partisanship 
and politics where it does not belong. With time running out on the 
fiscal year, we have to put politics aside and come together to keep 
the government open and serving the American people.
  To that end, I want to state to all of my colleagues in their 
offices--or wherever they may be--who are preparing to come over and 
vote: this vote on this previous question may be one of the most 
important votes that you have ever taken.
  All of us, while we were at home during our district work period, 
heard over and over and over again from businesspeople, from hospitals, 
from schools--from everybody--that the sequester was ruining them. We 
have visited this plague upon them, and we can take it away. We can do 
it now.
  I will remind you that this CR continues the sequester. Let's take 
this opportunity we have now with this previous question, and everybody 
vote ``no'' on it on both sides, please. The simple thing that will 
happen here is we can vote on Mr. Van Hollen's proposal, which he just 
explained. It not only replaces the money that the sequester would cut, 
but we get more deficit reduction from Mr. Van Hollen's proposal than 
we get from the sequester.
  Every one of us who fails to vote ``no'' so that we can do that, 
which is the least of our responsibilities here, ought to have to 
explain it every single day to our constituents as to why we did not 
want to remove that awful burden which we inflicted. I am sure that 
every one of us--I'm certainly guilty of it myself--told our 
constituents back home that the House would never do that, that it was 
too dumb to be believed. But no. Now that we've done it, we like it--
but you don't see the consequences.
  Dr. Francis Collins, who is the head of the NIH, says that we are 
losing our scientists and that we are losing our research edge as we 
know we are falling further and further behind in education, in jobs, 
in the future of this country. We've failed to invest anything in our 
future. We are living with crumbling roads, crumbling infrastructure--
everything around us--but the uncertainty overrides it all: What next? 
What does this mean for me? Will I get to keep my job? Am I going to 
have to lay off all of those employees? How can I run the FBI when 
people are out on furlough?

  Why in the world would we put our people through this disgraceful 
charade here simply because we made a mistake?
  We have an opportunity now by voting ``no'' on the previous question, 
which would simply allow Mr. Van Hollen to get a vote on his measure. 
For heaven's sakes, please do that.
  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 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, with all of my heart, I urge everybody to 
vote ``no.''
  I want you to vote ``no,'' too, Mr. Speaker.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. The underlying bill is not as 
important to me as getting this sequester out of the way. Vote ``no'' 
on this at least, whatever you do.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to put you under any pressure, 
but we're counting on you.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank my good friend, the gentlelady. It's always great to 
have the opportunity to come down here and

[[Page H5692]]

exchange views with her. I want to make a couple of points in closing.
  First, remember, we did bring down legislation--and passed it out of 
this House--to deal with sequester twice. The Democrats in the Senate 
didn't pick it up, and the President didn't pick it up.
  To my friend Mr. Van Hollen, frankly, your legislation hasn't made it 
out of committee. You've got to get it out of committee before it comes 
to the floor, and so far, as persuasive as you are, you've not been 
that persuasive. Frankly, I don't think it would work on the floor.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE. If I finish my remarks, I certainly will yield to the 
gentleman.

                              {time}  1515

  My friends on the other side have repeatedly said we want to shut 
down the government. That's the last thing we want to do. This bill 
actually keeps the government open. It's not about shutting down the 
government; it's about keeping it open so we can negotiate and arrive 
at a larger deal.
  We intend to send this to the Senate with the defunding of ObamaCare, 
something the majority of this House feels strongly about, and then 
we're going to wait and see what the Senate sends back to us. My guess 
is at the end of the day--as you never know what's going to happen over 
there, maybe I won't make a guess. We'll just wait and see what comes 
back. But I certainly want to give some of my friends over there the 
opportunity to carry on this fight.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows in a new 
Congress, all the legislation that was considered in the previous 
Congress goes away. The fact is that in this Congress, we've not had 
one concrete proposal from our Republican colleagues to replace the 
sequester.
  Mr. COLE. Reclaiming my time, after you turned us down twice, we just 
think you guys are an awfully hard sell. The Senate is also a difficult 
sell on this. So let's move and do this CR and sit down in the next 75 
days. I think we have an opportunity, frankly, to come to a very large 
deal where we can deal with sequester, we can deal with the long-term 
deficit that we know is a huge problem for us, and we can move forward, 
I hope, in a bipartisan manner. This is our opportunity to do it. Let's 
pass this rule, pass this bill, and get to work.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 352 offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       Strike page 1, line 1 through page 2, line 11 and insert 
     the following:
       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 59) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 
     2014, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; (2) an 
     amendment received for printing in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII and caused to be printed by Representative Van 
     Hollen of Maryland, if offered by Representative Van Hollen 
     of Maryland or a designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for a division of the question; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.


        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.
       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. COLE. 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.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 352, if 
ordered, and adoption of House Resolution 351.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 193, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 472]

                               YEAS--232

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     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
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     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

[[Page H5693]]


     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     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 (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     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
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     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
     Honda
     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
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     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
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Engel
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Polis
     Rush
     Stockman
     Waters

                              {time}  1541

  Mr. DeFAZIO changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. McINTYRE and FRANKS of Arizona changed their 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 192, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 473]

                               YEAS--230

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     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
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     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
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     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 (MO)
     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--192

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     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
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     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
     Honda
     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
     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
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bass
     Beatty
     Davis, Rodney
     Engel
     Herrera Beutler
     McCarthy (NY)
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rush
     Waters

[[Page H5694]]




                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1547

  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 473 I was unavoidably detained and 
missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''

                          ____________________