[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 131 (Saturday, September 28, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5938-H5946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON 
 RULES AND RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2642, 
       FEDERAL AGRICULTURE REFORM AND RISK MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2013

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 361 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 361

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of September 30, 2013, relating to any of the 
     following: (1) A measure making continuing appropriations for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014. (2) A measure 
     relating to the public debt limit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution, the House hereby 
     (1) takes from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2642) to 
     provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and 
     other programs of the Department of Agriculture through 
     fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes, with the Senate 
     amendment thereto; and (2) concurs in the Senate amendment 
     with an amendment substituting for the matter proposed to be 
     inserted by the Senate amendment the text of H.R. 2642, as 
     passed by the House, modified by the insertion of a new title 
     IV consisting of the text of H.R. 3102, as passed by the 
     House, with designations, short titles, and cross-references 
     conformed accordingly.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman and my friend from Worcester, 
Massachusetts, (Mr. McGovern), 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. SESSIONS. 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 Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 361 provides this body 
with an expedited procedure necessary to ensure that all legislation 
needed to prevent a government shutdown can be expeditiously considered 
without delay. That is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker.
  Additionally, this resolution allows for consideration of legislation 
designed to ensure that our government

[[Page H5939]]

does not default on its debt obligations.
  Finally, House Resolution 361 provides the necessary framework to 
move forward with consideration of the farm bill, with our friends in 
the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, at midnight on Monday, just 2 days from now, the Federal 
Government would shut down if Congress does not act to provide the 
necessary appropriations. There are varying schools of thought on what 
these appropriations should look like, but I believe that all Members, 
regardless of party affiliation, are united in the understanding that a 
government shutdown is detrimental to this Nation and to the American 
people.
  Over the next couple of days, there will be much deliberation over 
how to appropriately fund this effort and the government. This 
resolution before us today is necessary to ensure that once a decision 
is reached, this body can quickly react without undue delay to prevent 
a government shutdown.

                              {time}  1230

  I recognize that this is an important time, as do all of my 
colleagues. Even the House Chaplain is here on the floor of the House 
today because he has great expectations that we, as a body, can work 
together to do the things that will ensure that our government is seen 
in the light by the American people as doing the right thing for them, 
because that is what our job and our oath of office is, to make sure 
that the American people are protected and that we, as one Nation under 
God, will move forward together.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, my friend 
from Texas, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes. And I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a martial law rule that will allow for 
consideration of a yet-to-be-seen continuing resolution and a yet-to-
be-seen debt ceiling bill. This martial law rule also adds to the farm 
bill the dreadful and hurtful cuts to food stamps that the Republicans 
approved last week, a cut that will throw 3.8 million people off the 
program, including 170,000 unemployed veterans.
  This was a truly awful piece of legislation; and the way the 
Republicans continue to diminish the plight of poor people, the way 
they continue to beat up on programs that benefit them stuns me. It 
takes my breath away.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republican majority is back on the House 
floor, trampling upon regular order and eliminating any possibility of 
a fair and transparent legislative process.
  When the majority assumed control of this Chamber in 2011, they 
promised to adhere to regular order. On March 10, 2010, National 
Journal reporter Major Garrett asked Speaker John Boehner:

       If you are Speaker, will you ever bring a bill to the floor 
     that hasn't been true to the 3-day rule?

  Speaker Boehner replied with one word, ``No.''
  In the same interview, Congressman Boehner said:

       We need to stop writing bills in the Speaker's Office and 
     let Members of Congress be legislators again. We have nothing 
     to fear from the battle of ideas.

  Those promises seem a million miles away today.
  Sadly, since that time, the Republican majority has repeatedly 
violated their own promises of openness and transparency; 33 times, the 
majority has violated its own 3-day promise and rushed legislation to 
the House floor. They have avoided the committee process and brought 
legislation straight to the House floor 48 times. And despite promising 
to let the House ``work its will,'' the majority has approved 157 
closed or structured rules and just 31 open or modified rules. In 
short, the majority has shut out the Democrats and shut out many 
Republicans and shut down the democratic process.
  Why have they done this? Not because they are letting the House work 
its will. They have abandoned regular order because an extreme faction 
of the Republican Party is so uncompromising that they are willing to 
shut down our government or implode our economy unless they get their 
way.
  As a potential government shutdown looms just a couple of days from 
now, we still do not know what the Republican majority is planning to 
do. What we do know is that whatever they propose will have been 
written behind closed doors in an attempt to appease the most extreme 
elements of the Republican Conference.
  Mr. Speaker, time is running out. Now more than ever, the American 
people deserve a fair and transparent legislative process so that we 
can keep our government open and our economy on track. Implementing 
martial law, as this rule would do, would be a step in the wrong 
direction. And I urge my colleagues to reject today's rule and protect 
our democratic process.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge my Republican friends not 
to shut this government down. Now, we've heard rumors that behind 
closed doors, Republicans are gathering and are trying to figure out 
what to do. And I know that you have to check with Ted Cruz before you 
bring anything to the House floor. But the rumors that we are hearing 
is that what you are proposing is even more right-wing than what the 
Senate has already rejected, in other words, a nonstarter.
  I would urge my friends, do not put the American people through yet 
another manufactured crisis that will do great damage to our economy. 
Stop the drama. This has become theater of the absurd.
  I am praying that there are some grownups in the Republican 
Conference who will take charge and avoid an unnecessary shutdown by 
passing a clean CR and also by passing a clean debt ceiling bill that 
isn't porked up with Tea Party sweeteners. Time is running out. The 
American people are frustrated. It's time to get real. This isn't a 
game. People will be hurt by your intransigence. Do the right thing. Do 
your job.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  With great respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts, we have been 
debating these issues for a long, long time--not just the closed rule 
and the way that the ObamaCare bill was rushed to the floor of the 
House in March a couple of years ago, but since then, a complete denial 
about what really the real impact of ObamaCare is.
  And the gentleman is right, the gentleman is absolutely correct: 
Republicans, 100 percent of us, are absolutely opposed to ObamaCare. 
But there are reasons why. It's not some narrow political ideology. In 
fact, it's reality.
  And the reality is--and I will lay these out in several different 
formats, Mr. Speaker, just to make it easy for the American people to 
understand what we're talking about--the cost to taxpayers. And I know 
we were told there won't be any cost to taxpayers; but, in fact, there 
was a $716 billion cut to Medicare. That means senior care. This 
ObamaCare cuts seniors' care. It takes $716 billion out of Medicare to 
pay for ObamaCare. That's wrong. That is taking this out on America's 
seniors.
  Next, there will be $1.8 billion that we know about that we will be 
spending over the next decade alone to fund ObamaCare.

  The cost to families. I'm from Dallas, Texas. On average, Texas 
families face a potential premium increase from 5 to 43 percent in the 
individual market and a 23 percent increase for small groups. That's 
the little bit that we know about the announcement that came out the 
other day. It could be up to a 43 percent increase.
  The cost to employers. Well, the cost to employers is also a cost to 
their workers. It's a cost to the economy. It's a cost to stock prices, 
which people have their pensions in. Recently, Delta Airlines announced 
that ObamaCare will cost the company $100 million in increased premiums 
in just 1 year. That's a huge cost, $100 million.
  The impact on health insurance coverage. Americans are losing their 
current health insurance. Employers have begun dropping spouses from 
their health insurance. Just last week, UPS also announced an extra 
15,000 spouses of its employees will be dropped from their health 
insurance plan.
  ObamaCare's impact on American jobs: fewer jobs. According to the 
CBO, ObamaCare will shrink employment by .5 percent. Well, let's see 
what that does. It doesn't just decrease it by .5 percent. It really 
means that full-time workers are becoming part-time workers directly as 
a result of ObamaCare.

[[Page H5940]]

ObamaCare puts 3.2 million jobs at risk in the franchise industry 
alone. Fewer hours and more part-time jobs. Since ObamaCare was passed, 
there have been seven part-time jobs created for every one full-time 
job.
  That's simple. I get that. As a former employer, I understood if you 
put rules and regulations on who is required to pay for full-time 
workers, they simply understood that and ducked out by hiring part-time 
employees. Full-time growth has only expanded by .23 percent. That's 
two-tenths of 1 percent since ObamaCare has passed.
  This is not the direction America ought to be going. The Republican 
Party is opposed to ObamaCare. We are here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives again; and I think we are gathering support across the 
lines of the American people, including union leaders who say this is 
the wrong way to go.
  I don't know that this is the last time to say ``no.'' But we are 
taking every opportunity we can, as the Republican Party, to say that 
where we are headed with this costly health care change, which will 
diminish and destroy America's greatest health care system in the 
world, is what we are going to stand up for.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the facts of the case are a daunting task 
for our American economy to overcome. And that's why the Republican 
Party, the party of full-time jobs and careers, is on the floor of the 
House of Representatives, thoughtfully articulating here and to the 
American people about why we're doing what we're doing.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an 
article entitled, ``Why a Government Shutdown Could Be a Pricey 
Proposition,'' talking about the cost to the taxpayers if the 
Republicans move ahead with the shutdown.

         Why a Government Shutdown Could be Pricey Proposition

                            (By Carrie Dann)

                     [From NBC News, Sep 28, 2013]

       If past is prologue, a looming government shutdown could 
     actually cost U.S. taxpayers money. A lot of money.
       According to the Office of Management and Budget, the two 
     shutdowns in 1995 and 1996 cost taxpayers $1.4 billion 
     combined. Adjust for inflation and you've got $2 billion in 
     today's dollars.
       Those two shutdowns lasted a total of 27 days, but there's 
     no telling how long the government could be shuttered this 
     time around if Congress fails to act by Monday at midnight. 
     Even shorter shutdowns have proven successful at draining 
     government funds.
       In the immediate aftermath of the first government shutdown 
     in 1981, the most conservative estimate--conducted by the 
     General Accounting Office (now called the Government 
     Accountability Office)--put the cost of shutting the 
     government down for a single day at $8.2 million, or almost 
     $21 million in today's dollars. A House panel later concluded 
     that the day-long furlough cost taxpayers 10 times more than 
     that.
       ``Past shutdowns have disrupted the economy, and this 
     shutdown would as well,'' President Barack Obama said at an 
     address at the White House on Friday. ``It would throw a 
     wrench into the gears of our economy at a time when those 
     gears have gained some traction.''
       It may seem counter-intuitive that pressing the pause 
     button on the federal government's operations could come with 
     such a hefty price tag . . . so why does it take so much cash 
     to keep the government's lights off? And why do estimates 
     vary so widely?
       First, there's the actual mechanics of preparing for a 
     shutdown, like alerting staff of procedures and preparing to 
     secure files and facilities. For example, during the first 
     five day shutdown in 1995, the Labor Department alone spent 
     almost $12,000 on postage, printing and paper for furlough 
     notices. The Treasury Department calculated the cost of 
     developing contingency shutdown plans at just over $400,000.
       That process--and some of the costs associated with it--is 
     already underway days or even weeks before a shutdown 
     deadline, whether the crisis is averted or not.
       ``Those costs begin to be incurred now, when the debate is 
     still going on,'' said Bruce Yandle, a professor of economics 
     at Clemson University who served as the executive director of 
     the Federal Trade Commission during the Reagan 
     Administration. ``It's what employees are already discussing 
     around the water cooler. It's already affecting decisions 
     being made by management.''
       The impact of a brief shutdown--or even just the threat of 
     one--for government contractors can also mean higher costs 
     for federal agencies in the future, although it's almost 
     impossible to assign a dollar amount, says Roy Meyers, a 
     political science professor at the University of Maryland 
     Baltimore County and a former CBO analyst.
       ``It can reduce the profits of the contractors,'' says 
     Meyers. ``And the next time they consider working with the 
     federal government, they count that as a risk, and they 
     charge more.''
       That impact could be felt acutely in the Washington, D.C., 
     area, where many contractors are based. And that could be 
     compounded by the impact on tourism in the District as 
     federally-funded museums and monuments are shuttered. The 
     shutdowns of the 1990s cost the District of Columbia an 
     estimated $50 million in lost business and cancellations, 
     officials said at the time.
       There's also the issue of back-pay for furloughed workers. 
     While only those workers deemed ``non-essential'' would stay 
     home during a shutdown--about 40 percent of the federal 
     workforce during the mid-1990s--there's a precedent for 
     lawmakers granting those individuals their pay once the 
     government is back up and running, even though they weren't 
     producing any work.
       Cost estimates must also factor in delays in the collection 
     of fines and fees typically gathered by federal agencies.
       OMB said after the twin shutdowns in 1995 and 1996 that 
     $2.2 billion worth of licenses for U.S. exports were delayed 
     and that some $60 million in environmental fines and 
     settlements were not collected or negotiated.
       Most of those fees eventually get collected, says Yandle, 
     but the delays and the inconvenience to businesses and 
     consumers can end up having resonance that won't show up in 
     cost estimates at all.
       ``Those costs that cannot be estimated are often much more 
     important than those that can,'' he said.
       Meyers argues that a shutdown's cost to the budget or the 
     effects on the overall economy estimates--flawed as they may 
     be--pale in comparison the societal cost of a government that 
     seems bent on playing political chicken rather than focusing 
     on solving problems.
       ``The real costs are really not in terms of consumer 
     confidence or any of the standard measures in macroeconomics 
     or even the federal budget,'' he said. ``The real costs are 
     in trust in government and belief that government officials 
     are paying attention to the real issues of the country.''

  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say, before I yield to the gentlelady from New York, the 
Republican talking points we just heard are absolutely wrong, 
absolutely wrong.
  To suggest that somehow senior citizens will get less care is just 
false. The fact of the matter is we see expanding care for senior 
citizens. We see preventative care being covered without copays. We see 
the doughnut hole in the Medicare prescription drug bill that the 
Republicans passed, where seniors are asked to pay huge out-of-pocket 
expenses, closing down.
  We are seeing young people being able to stay on their parents' 
insurance until they are 26. It is no longer considered to be a 
preexisting condition if you are a woman in this country because of the 
Affordable Care Act. And I could go down the list of all the things 
that have been accomplished.
  Now, let me just say to my Republican friends, you lost the last 
election. You lost big. President Obama won reelection. Your whole 
election was about the Affordable Care Act. He won reelection by 5 
million votes. Democrats picked up seats in the Senate. We even picked 
up seats in the House. And by the way, in terms of the congressional 
races, Democrats received 1 million more votes than Republicans did. 
You lost the last election.
  Now, if you don't like the Affordable Care Act, there's a way you can 
deal with it: you can go out and try to win some more seats. And then 
you can come to the floor, introduce bills, bring them through 
committee, you know, have the Senate do the same thing, conference 
them, and then send them to the President's desk. And by the way, you 
can try to win the Presidency. That's the normal way to do legislative 
business.
  What you are doing here is you have distorted the legislative 
process. This is making a mockery of the legislative process. You have 
turned this House of Representatives into a laughingstock. And the 
bottom line is, what the American people want us to do right now is to 
keep the government moving ahead, keep it running--not shut it down--
deal with the debt ceiling without holding that hostage to all the Tea 
Party sweeteners, and do our job.
  Democrats are willing to work with Republicans to get things done. 
But instead, you are all huddled in this secret meeting somewhere in 
the Capitol, where there's no transparency, where we have absolutely no 
say, where we're going to be told, Here it is; take it or leave it. 
That's not the way this process should work. This process has become a 
disgrace.
  So I say to my colleagues that the notion that somehow your health 
care

[[Page H5941]]

benefits have been decreased because of the Affordable Care Act is just 
so far from the truth, it's comical.
  At this point, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you very much. I appreciate my colleague for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts did a very good 
job of refuting what we heard in the talking points, but let me add 
just one or two things to it.
  We've always known that if people say an untruth often enough, loud 
enough, that they begin to believe it themselves. But we still hope 
that the country out there at large will not.
  Let me just put it this way as succinctly as I can. The same group 
that's fighting today also fought the Social Security law and the 
Medicare law. They hated it all. They didn't want any of that done, and 
I don't believe that the American people now are feeling very good 
about giving up either one of those.
  Their fear right now is that when this bill goes into effect--not 
until January--all the awful things you have heard about are not even 
in effect yet because this bill is not in effect--that it is going to 
be a success, and they are going to have a lot of explaining to do.
  Now, a report just released that I heard about yesterday showed that 
only 1 percent of businesses in the United States of America have made 
any changes at all. And, indeed, small business gets great benefits 
providing health care in tax rebates.
  Now, the most important thing I want to say--because the contrast to 
what we're doing here today is so glaring. When we did the health care 
bill--and every President since Teddy Roosevelt has tried to--when we 
did it, it went through the committee process in both Houses, and 
everybody had a chance. Every committee in the House and in the Senate 
contains both Republicans and Democrats who proposed amendments. Some 
of them were accepted. In fact, one of the ones we are working with now 
is to try to make some sense out of the one that was added by Senator 
Grassley over in the Senate, a Republican.
  The idea that we rammed this thing through in the middle of the night 
and nobody had ever seen it is absurd.

                              {time}  1245

  Everybody knew about it. The whole thing was transparent. The 
committee meetings were all open, and everybody had a chance.
  Never in the world have we ever seen people fight so hard to do away 
with a piece of legislation that is a legitimate law. And what do they 
do with the rest of it? They have dropped the entire process of 
governing the House of Representatives. We have, over this year, seen 
not a piece of work get down. Appropriations bills in the House and 
Senate, none. Absolutely none. So we are having to do a continuing 
resolution because we have no budget. A budget was passed in the House; 
a budget was passed in the Senate. The Republicans in the House of 
Representatives have refused what is normal process, to sit down and 
confer over that budget and give us a budget.
  Since January of 2011, 42 votes have been held here to defund or to 
undermine the historic law. They have repeatedly failed to complete the 
most basic of congressional functions, which is passing the 
appropriations legislation to keep the government open. In fact, what 
their mantra is: Do we need to create jobs in America? Well, let's 
repeal ObamaCare. Do we need to balance our budget? Well, let's repeal 
ObamaCare. We need to keep the government open; oh, my goodness, let's 
repeal ObamaCare--the answer to everything and the cure for absolutely 
nothing.
  And now their legislative malpractice--and I don't know of anything 
else that you can call it--has led us to the brink of a major crisis. 
Reading just this morning from Frank Keating, the former Republican 
Governor of Oklahoma: What in the world is going on here? What in the 
world do we think we're doing?
  As they begin to see the consequences of their action, they're 
doubling down, putting forth a list of demands that even the greediest 
child on Christmas morning would be put to shame. In exchange for 
averting government shutdown and a global economic crisis, the House 
majority considers making the following demands:
  A 1-year delay of the individual mandate, which would gut the health 
care law; the implementation of Congressman Ryan's tax reform plan, 
which does away with Medicare, by the way, despite the fact that 
voters, as my colleague said, rejected his draconian vision as he ran 
for Vice President last year; and the repeal of Dodd-Frank.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlelady.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. The repeal of Dodd-Frank so that we can go back to an 
era of unregulated Wall Street banks; and they want to construct the 
Keystone pipeline.
  None of this has anything in the world to do with what is facing us 
today. They want to do away with all of the environmental regulations. 
The list goes on and on.
  It is time for this temper tantrum to end and for cooler heads to 
prevail. There must be some cooler heads here on the other side. With 
time running out, the majority has to act to keep this government open 
and try to get this economy on track. The American people must be 
spared from the consequences of a majority that cannot find the will or 
the ability to legislate.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ten days ago, we had a debate on this floor where we heard about what 
the Republican Party was doing: Taking food away from disabled people; 
that's not true. Today, we hear about how Republicans want to repeal 
all laws that are related to clean water, clean air, all of these 
onerous things that they talk about; not true. We're for clean water; 
we're for clean air.
  I, myself, and many of my colleagues, are outdoorsmen who believe in 
not only the wilderness of this country but also the freedoms that come 
with that. We're for clean water and clean air, but we're not for the 
rules and regulations that kill jobs like the Democrats' war on coal, 
and that's when Republicans do stand up, Mr. Speaker. We stand up and 
say: We're not going to tolerate taking away our constitutional rights 
nor the rights of free people to have their jobs by rules and 
regulations that are based upon premises that just aren't even true, 
that cannot stand the test of sound science.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is one of the brightest Members of our body 
and who also sits on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  I just heard a term used here, ``legislative malpractice.'' It's an 
interesting term because I believe it applies so succinctly to the 
process that gave us the Affordable Care Act.
  Many people now don't even remember December 21, 2009. It is but a 
distant and dim memory; but on that very night, on the longest and the 
darkest evening of the year, the Senate held a cloture vote to allow 
the Affordable Care Act to proceed to a vote in the full Senate. It 
passed the 60-vote margin. On Christmas Eve, the Affordable Care Act 
passed by that same 60-vote margin, right ahead of a big snowstorm 
because all of the Senators wanted to get out of town.
  Let's think about this for a minute. Were there hearings on H.R. 3590 
in the House of Representatives? No, there were not. There were health 
care hearings, to be sure. Those led to a big, explosive growth in 
attendance at our town halls in the summer of 2009, but there was never 
a hearing on H.R. 3590, save the hearing in the Rules Committee the 
night before it came to the floor of the House in March of 2010. The 
hearings on H.R. 3200 were vastly different from the law as written in 
H.R. 3590.
  And here's the real crux, Mr. Speaker. Here's what's really wrong and 
why Washington is in such a lather right now: The Affordable Care Act 
was never intended to become law. It was a vehicle to get the Senators 
home on Christmas Eve before the snowstorm. It was never intended to be 
law. The law that was passed by the Senate was a rough draft. It's 
equivalent to saying the dog ate my homework so I turned in the rough 
draft; and, unfortunately, the rough draft got signed into law the

[[Page H5942]]

following March, and that's why there's so much difficulty with this.

  You know, HR directors across this country, labor lawyers across this 
country are just literally pulling their hair out trying to make heads 
or tails of what they are required to do under the law. They get 
conflicting information from people at the Federal agencies.
  Goodness knows, in our committee hearings on Energy and Commerce, we 
have yet to have an administration person come in and really be 
prepared to answer our questions. What they are prepared to do is to 
try to mislead us and try to fill the time and try to filibuster and 
live through the hearing of the day and then get on to whatever it is 
they do.
  I asked the Director of the Center for Consumer Information and 
Insurance Oversight just last week: Will you be ready on October 1? A 
yes or no question; I asked for a simple yes or no answer. He gave me a 
long, convoluted answer about people going online and this, that, and 
the other. I said: You can't answer the question ``yes'' or ``no?'' He 
repeated his long discourse.
  But then what happened, while the President himself was out giving a 
speech on the greatness of the Affordable Care Act, oh, yeah, the 
Department of Health and Human Services put out a little memo that, in 
fact, people won't be able to go online. They might have to fax their 
information in on October 1.
  And here's the real point. Sure, you can criticize Republicans for 
having 42 votes to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act. Guess what? 
Seven times we've been successful. It passed the Senate and went on to 
the President and he signed it. Gone are the 1099s; gone are the CLASS 
Act. There are some things that, in fact, have happened to actually 
make the Affordable Care Act a little bit better. But who has been the 
delayer in chief on the Affordable Care Act? It has been the White 
House. It has been the President himself.
  Why do I say that? They extol the benefits of coverage for 
preexisting conditions, but no one can go to the Department of Health 
and Human Services and sign up for that Federal preexisting program. 
They closed the window on February 1 and said, Good luck. We'll see you 
next January 1 when you can sign up for ObamaCare. That's no answer to 
the problem.
  And look at what happened on July 2, right before everybody was to 
leave for the July Fourth holiday: 6 o'clock in the evening, on a blog 
post, they delayed the employer mandate.
  Now look, HR directors across the country are calling my office and 
asking: What Twitter feed do we need to follow to find out what's 
happening to this law? Do I need to go on Instagram to keep up with 
what's happening in this law? What's going to be delayed next?
  The President of the United States has been the delayer in chief. The 
caps on out-of-pocket maximums, delayed for another year. Small 
business health exchanges, gone for another year. The story repeats 
itself over and over again. I dare say, we will see a compression of 
morbidities next week and the week after, after this thing is supposed 
to go live.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, had we had hearings, we might 
have actually come to an answer that would be more logical. Why didn't 
we ask any Governor what they thought of what the Congress was doing 
with health care in 2009? Where was Governor Mitch Daniels, who had 
managed to hold down cost in his State employees' health care by 11 
percent over 2 years with his Healthy Indiana Plan? Why didn't we have 
him into committee to find out how he had managed to do that? Why 
didn't we have the Governor of Utah, who was attempting to set up 
exchanges in his State?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BURGESS. The Governor of Utah had been trying to set up exchanges 
in his own State for some time. He came to our committee and testified 
after the fact, after this thing had passed, after the Republicans were 
back in the majority and we invited him in. He said: I don't know what 
to do. I'm on shifting sands. Nothing seems stable right now.
  Where were the Governors when this law was written? Where were the 
Governors in our hearing?
  Mr. Speaker, we are at a crucial time in our country. The House is 
going to put forward legislation today that will keep our government 
open and funded. I pray--I pray--that Harry Reid and the President of 
the United States will not shut the government down.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, oh, my goodness.
  First of all, I would say to the gentleman from Texas who just went 
on this kind of diatribe trashing the President of the United States 
and the Affordable Care Act, rather than doing that, maybe he can 
enlighten us about what's going on in that secret meeting downstairs? 
What has the right wing decided to do in terms of bringing a CR to the 
floor or debt ceiling? I'd be happy to yield 10 seconds to him to tell 
us what's coming to the floor.
  I was referring to the other gentleman from Texas, but if this 
gentleman from Texas can inform us what, in fact, is coming.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I certainly can, and I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 10 seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. We're gathering our ideas together, and we're going to 
come to this floor of the House this afternoon and, with resolve, help 
the American people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. That's not particularly enlightening; but, let me ask 
the gentleman: Are we going to have any hearings on what is being 
decided in the back room somewhere in the Capitol here? Will Members be 
able to offer amendments? Or are we just going to be given something 
and told to take it or leave it?
  I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman engaging me.

  An announcement has been made, Mr. Speaker, that the Rules Committee 
will be in this afternoon to do just that. I thank the gentleman
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in other words, none of the committees of 
jurisdiction that oversee a lot of the issues in the CR will be having 
any hearings or there will be any markups on that.
  I would also say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) who kind 
of went on about no hearings, there were lots of hearings on the 
Affordable Care Act. Maybe he didn't go to them, but there were lots of 
them, number one.
  I would like to ask him: How many hearings were there on the bill 
that the Republicans brought up last week to cut the food stamp program 
by $40 billion, throwing 3.8 million low-income people off the program, 
throwing 170,000 veterans off the program? How many hearings on that? 
None. Zero.
  This is becoming a habit in this House where the committees of 
jurisdiction don't even have a say. The Agriculture Committee didn't 
have a chance to hold a hearing or even a markup on that bill. This is 
the way this House is being run.
  I would just again remind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) 
again, look, you may not like the Affordable Care Act--I get it--but it 
passed with a majority of votes in the House and a majority of votes in 
the Senate. The President signed it into law. That's the way we do 
things here. That's the way laws are passed. And you didn't like it and 
you went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court upheld it. I'm 
sorry you don't like it, but the majority voted for it, and I think a 
majority of people in this country, once they understand that all the 
falsehoods and distortions that are being told here are nothing more 
than Republican talking points, I think they'll appreciate the fact 
that health care will be a right in this country and not a privilege.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members to direct 
their remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Let me begin by paraphrasing Sir Walter Scott, and I 
think it's really an accurate description of what is going on on the 
other side of the aisle with the Republican majority. Sir Walter Scott 
said:

       Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to 
     deceive.

  This is about deception of where we are moving forward.

[[Page H5943]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It aims to put our 
country on the same radical, dangerous, ideological path that was 
decisively repudiated at the polls last November. We all know one 
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over. Well, 
here we are again.
  The House majority is trying to move one step closer to locking in 
the deep, automatic cuts caused by sequestration. Everyone in this room 
knows these cuts are destroying jobs all across America, robbing 
children of the education they need, slowing the pace of lifesaving 
research, and threatening everything from public safety to public 
health. Even the chair of the Appropriations Committee--I might add, a 
Republican--has said:

       Sequestration--and its unrealistic and ill-conceived 
     discretionary cuts--must be brought to an end.

                              {time}  1300

  This rule does exactly the opposite. It allows the majority to 
advance a budget that makes these dangerous cuts permanent.
  This resolution also seeks--for the 43rd time--to deny quality, 
affordable health care to millions of Americans. In fact, the 
Affordable Care Act has passed the Congress--House and Senate. It was 
signed into law by the President. It was upheld by the Supreme Court. 
And it was reaffirmed by the American people at the ballot box.
  Let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: get over 
it. The Nation doesn't want to repeal this bill. They do want, if there 
are problems, to make changes. In short, it is the law of the land--one 
that will help Americans lead healthier lives without having to worry 
about being bankrupted by an injury or an illness.
  And what my colleagues want to do, quite frankly, is they want to 
return your decisions on your health care back to the insurance 
companies to make the decisions on your health care, and to tell you 
that they're not going to cover you for a preexisting condition. They 
won't cover your child who may have asthma or autism, or for someone 
like myself, who is a cancer survivor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. DeLAURO. And because they cannot repeal the law through the usual 
process, the majority is threatening to bring down the government--and 
soon, the economy--to get their way. This could not be more 
irresponsible.
  They also want to push forward a rule that will move their farm bill 
with $40 billion in cuts in the food stamp programs, while at the same 
time providing $90 billion in crop insurance subsidies for wealthy 
agribusiness. Deep cuts to the food stamp program have nothing to do 
with cutting the debt and everything to do with the majority's radical 
ideology.
  The Department of Agriculture reports it spent $14 billion on crop 
insurance last year alone. This majority chooses to force over 4 
million low-income Americans to go hungry--children, seniors, veterans, 
and working families--while continuing to provide the richest of 
subsidies to the rich.
  Let's be clear: we are at the eleventh hour. It is time for the 
majority to stop playing games, stop trying to repeal the last 
election, and stop trying to push a government and the entire economy 
into a shutdown. We have to do better.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Houston, Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, our job description is 
``Representative,'' and we are reelected every year to come to change 
the law, no matter what might have happened in previous Congresses.
  Today, in a few hours, the Nation is going to see the constitutional 
conservative majority in the House stay true to our word to our 
districts and to our Nation to stand on principle. We will have the 
courage of our convictions to do what we need to do to slow down this 
destructive law that was rammed through this House in less than 24 
hours--so rapidly that even Speaker Pelosi said we had to pass the law 
to find out what was in it.
  We are elected every Congress to come back and try to change the law. 
But today, the Nation will see the courage of the conviction of the 
constitutional conservatives that are in the majority in this House 
doing our job for our districts and our Nation. We will be 100 percent 
unified in this effort because we're standing on principle.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Maybe the gentleman from Texas can enlighten us as to what's going on 
in the secret meeting downstairs with the Republicans because we have 
no idea what's going to come to the floor. We have no idea about what's 
going to be in this continuing resolution or whether we're going to 
have a debt ceiling bill or anything. We're in the dark here. We'd like 
to know. I think the American people would like to know what's in this 
bill.
  Can you enlighten us about what's happening in this secret meeting? 
Is Ted Cruz in the meeting? What's going on?
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas for 5 seconds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It is a meeting all Republican Members are attending, and we are 
meeting together and speaking. We will be up in the Rules Committee 
this afternoon.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the other gentleman 
from Texas that we're all elected, too. We respect and appreciate and 
value the Constitution every bit as much as he does, and there is a 
constitutional way to run the government, which we are all supporting 
here.
  It seems what the gentleman wants to do is just trash all that. He 
wants to say that what happens in the House and the Senate doesn't 
matter; the President signs it, it doesn't matter; the Supreme Court 
rules, it doesn't matter. I don't know where he's coming from.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding and for his leadership.
  We do live in a constitutional Republic. That constitutional Republic 
requires for this Nation not to be held hostage by self-centered 
special interests.
  We come to the floor today to stand in opposition to the minority of 
the majority holding the vast numbers of Americans who want a rational 
approach, to continue the operation of this government, and to be able 
to make a difference.
  So I rise today and say that martial law--even the concept of it--is 
one that finds itself with a very difficult premise. Whatever we want 
to throw down today, the American people have to take it. And so if 
someone rises and says there are Medicare cuts, we have to take it and 
believe that it happens. The Affordable Care Act did not do that. In 
fact, the Affordable Care Act rescued seniors from the abyss of the 
doughnut hole. When you threw them over the doughnut hole, when they 
were drowning in the doughnut hole because of Medicare part D, we've 
helped them cut their prescription costs.

  And so this misrepresentation about the Affordable Care Act and the 
urgency to defund it is a misnomer, it's incorrect, and it's just plain 
wrong.
  This proposed CR, or continuing resolution, that now wants to delay 
the individual mandate, Mr. Speaker, I don't think my colleagues 
remember the hours and days and weeks of hearings that we had in this 
place. Maybe they don't remember the little girl who was suffering from 
leukemia that went into an insurance company with her family in 
California and died because the insurance company would not cover her 
because she had a preexisting disease. I wonder what it feels like to 
see your child die in your arms because there is no insurance.
  I will not vote for anything that will delay the individual mandate 
while young women over the age of 26 who are susceptible to early 
cancer will not be able to find affordable, reasonable health 
insurance. Not on my watch.
  I will not vote for this rule. And I ask you not to vote for it. It 
is interesting that we can cut $40 billion out of food subsistence for 
46 million Americans--

[[Page H5944]]

75 percent are children, 23 percent are disabled, 11 percent are 
elderly, and some of them are the families of soldiers--but we can vote 
today to give fat cats subsidies.
  You will divide us like that if you want to make sure that you take 
care of your district and not take care of America. Well, I came today 
to rise on the floor of the House to say that the Founding Fathers 
stuck together in the Thirteen Colonies when they declared their 
independence. There's something about unity for the greater good. And I 
refuse to let this House fall on the spear for individual selfish 
perspectives--because I got mine, you get yours. America deserves 
better. We will vote in the best interest of America. It is to continue 
this government and provide for ObamaCare and make sure that there's 
health care for a better America.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's arguments that she makes on the floor, 
but the facts of the case are the facts of the case.
  ObamaCare took $716 billion out of Medicare to fund ObamaCare. 
Secondly, since ObamaCare was passed, there have been seven part-time 
jobs added for every one new full-time job added.
  We cannot pay for this bill. It is nonsustaining, and it's harming 
America and its future. That's why Republicans are here, gathering in 
strength and in numbers with resolve again today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it's pretty clear what's going on here today. My 
Republican friends didn't get their way so now they're throwing a 
tantrum.
  I see many more Members on the floor today as these speeches have 
gone on. I'm just curious: Can anybody enlighten us on what in fact 
happened in your secret conference, what we're going to vote on? I 
think the American people would like to know.
  I yield to anybody if they can tell me one fact that has been 
decided.
  I guess nobody wants to tell us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts yielded to 
me, but I don't know what they've got cooking over there.
  What I do know is this, Mr. Speaker--and this is abundantly clear: 
unless we take up the Senate bill, unless we take up what the Senate 
has passed, we will be in a situation where whatever is put on the 
floor and passes will have to go back to the Senate. And Harry Reid has 
indicated we don't have time.
  So unless we take up the Senate bill, we are going to head for a 
shutdown. That means the Republican majority has just shut down the 
government.
  Now we still have time. Reasonable heads can still prevail. But if we 
do anything other than keep the government open until November 15 vis-
a-vis the Senate bill, the Republicans will have done what they did 17 
years ago: shut the government down.
  This is extremely irresponsible, Mr. Speaker. It's extremely 
irresponsible because people on Social Security who need to call and 
get their questions answered--and who might need to get some real 
responsive answers--won't get them because there won't be people there 
to man the phones.
  Veterans' services will be slowed down, as well as national parks, 
medical research, and all types of people working for the Federal 
Government will have a painful payday. They'll have time when they're 
in suspended animation. No matter what is going on, their lives will be 
turned upside down, as they don't know what is going to happen.
  So we're not taking up the Senate bill, apparently. We don't know 
what we are taking up, but we're not taking up that. And that is 
irresponsible and wrong.
  Why are we doing this? Is there some big reason? The reason was the 
deficit. You recall, Mr. Speaker, August 2011, the Republicans 
threatened to break the debt ceiling and default on America's full 
faith and credit because of debt and deficit. We're not even talking 
about that today. It's all now about ObamaCare.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There's a lot of words that are coming out of my friends' mouths 
about a secret meeting, about things that are happening, like they 
can't figure it out.
  Mr. Speaker, right behind me are going to be 230 strong Republican 
Members of Congress who were in a meeting where we, with great resolve, 
saw the future of this country. They saw it not only the same way, but 
we're going to do our job.
  I think the height of irresponsibility is any of these two bodies 
sending their Members home. Speaker John Boehner has the Republican 
Members of Congress who are here, ready, willing, and able to vote.
  And you're right, you did hear these Members gathering together with 
excitement about helping our future, helping the American people. 
That's why we're here today. We're proud to be Republicans. We're proud 
to be Americans, one Nation under God.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman, if it's 
not a secret meeting, can someone tell us what happened in it, or is 
just for Republicans only? I think we ought to know what we're voting 
on before we vote on it. Maybe that's a radical idea in this 
Republican-controlled House, but I think it's a reasonable request.
  At this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is time for my Republican 
colleagues to do more than repeal. It is time for my Republican 
colleagues to pass a bill.
  Who can deny that the House is controlled by my Republican 
colleagues? They control every committee, they control every 
subcommittee. They are in control. Who can deny that they have the 
opportunity to pass the perfect bill to deal with health care in this 
country?
  Where is the bill that will deal with closing the doughnut hole for 
senior citizens? Where is the bill that will help those who have 
preexisting conditions to acquire insurance? Where is the bill that 
will deal with the cap that has been placed on insurance prior to 
ObamaCare?
  They are in charge. The logical question is: Why haven't they passed 
a bill since the Affordable Care Act passed more than 3 years ago?
  It is time to do more than repeal. You have to have a bill. It is 
time for my Republican colleagues to do the logical thing, to do the 
judicious thing, to do the prudent thing: pass your bill. Then we can 
see how ObamaCare passed to what you have, which of course is the 
perfect bill.
  It's time to do more than repeal. It is time to pass a bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we have our Republican majority Members 
here ready, willing, and able not just to do the work of the American 
people, but to do the things that will make sense about our future for 
the next generation of Americans.
  I am through with any speakers that we now have and would reserve the 
balance of my time for the gentleman to close and use his time as he 
chooses.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are voting on a martial law rule that will allow us 
to bring up either a continuing resolution or a debt ceiling bill this 
very day, and nobody has seen anything. Nobody has seen any language.
  There has been a secret meeting with Republicans to talk about what 
they can pass, but none of that information has been shared with us. 
There have been no hearings. There's been nothing. What a lousy way to 
run a government. This is not the way it should be done, And it doesn't 
have to be done this way.
  Mr. Speaker, the stakes are very high. You know, come Monday at 
midnight, if we don't do the right thing, the government is going to 
shut down. And as I said earlier in the debate, that is going to cost 
the American taxpayers a great deal of money. Shutdowns aren't free.
  Part of the problem here is that my Republican friends can't get over 
the

[[Page H5945]]

fact that they lost the Presidential election. The right wing is 
holding the economy hostage based on a fixation on this view that 
everybody in this country doesn't deserve health care, when I think the 
majority of Americans believe that everybody should have access to 
good, quality health care in this country.
  I know you don't like the Affordable Care Act, but it passed. It 
passed the House and the Senate, signed by the President. The Supreme 
Court even upheld it. If you want to work with us to make it better, 
we're willing to do that. But the idea that you want to hold this 
economy hostage to repeal this is just ridiculous.
  I would urge my colleagues, in closing, to listen to your 
constituents. The majority of people in this country do not want you to 
shut this government down. The majority of people do not want you to 
defund the Affordable Care Act. Listen to your constituents--and not 
some guy in the other body, who one of his own colleagues referred to a 
``whacko bird.''
  The bottom line is: do the right thing. Do the right thing. Keep this 
government open. Do not shut the government down. I appeal to the 
grownups in the Republican Conference to come together. Let's have a 
compromise that we can pass and that we can send to the President and 
keep this government going and also address our debt ceiling issue. But 
let's stop the theatrics.
  Let's do the right thing. Let's vote on a clean CR and send it over 
to the Senate, and then let's get on with our other business.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members that 
remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to others in 
the second person.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. In fact, I will 
confine my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker, because we appreciate your 
great service. We also know that you represent John Boehner, our great 
Speaker, who has Republican Members here today to do the business of 
the American people. We are not a body that cuts and runs; we're a body 
that stays here and gets our work done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts asked and made a point about same-
day rules. In fact, Democrats in the 110th Congress were faced with 
this circumstance 17 times; in the 111th Congress, 26 times. It becomes 
normal and regular that you have to be here to get your work done, and 
that is what we're doing.
  Mr. Speaker, plain and simple: the Republican Party is here today 
because we are opposed to ObamaCare and the big government that comes 
behind it. We're opposed to what it is doing not just to the American 
people and our economy, but taking freedom away from people and making 
us more reliant upon the Federal Government. Less pride and freedom 
will be available in America if we do not do something about it.
  The cost is simple. The cost means that we're finding that $716 
billion was taken by the Democrats out of senior care in ObamaCare to 
fund the ObamaCare issue. The bottom line is, since ObamaCare was 
passed, there have been seven part-time jobs created for every one 
full-time job. That is not a future that we are going to stand with. 
The Republican Party is here in strength and numbers today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 191, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 493]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     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
     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
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     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)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     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 (IN)

                               NAYS--191

     Amash
     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     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
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     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
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Clay
     Davis (CA)
     Fattah
     Gibbs
     Gutierrez
     Kind
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pelosi
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rush
     Schock
     Visclosky
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1343

  Mrs. BEATTY, Messrs. JEFFRIES, RANGEL, and BARROW of Georgia

[[Page H5946]]

changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________