Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 124 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)

[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

[[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''

____________________