[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.
____________________