[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6122-H6133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 370, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
OPERATIONS, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART, AND
UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS
RESOLUTION, 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 71, DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 72, VETERANS BENEFITS CONTINUING
APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J.
RES. 73, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS
RESOLUTION, 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3230, PAY OUR
GUARD AND RESERVE ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO
SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
Providing for Consideration of the Joint Resolution (H.J.
Res. 70) Making Continuing Appropriations for National Park
Service Operations, the Smithsonian Institution, the National
Gallery of Art, and the United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum for Fiscal Year 2014, and for Other Purposes;
Providing for Consideration of the Joint Resolution (H.J.
Res. 71) Making Continuing Appropriations of Local Funds of
the District of Columbia for Fiscal Year 2014; providing for
Consideration of the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 72) Making
Continuing Appropriations for Veterans Benefits for Fiscal
Year 2014, and for Other Purposes; Providing for
Consideration of the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 73) Making
Continuing Appropriations for the National Institutes of
Health for Fiscal Year 2014, and for Other Purposes;
Providing for Consideration of the Bill (H.R. 3230) Making
Continuing Appropriations During a Government Shutdown To
Provide Pay and Allowances to Members of the Reserve
Components of the Armed Forces Who Perform Inactive-Duty
Training During Such Period; and Providing for Consideration
of Motions To Suspend the Rules
October 2, 2013.--Referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed
Mr. Woodall, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following
report [to accompany H. Res. 370.]
The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration
House Resolution 370, by a record vote of 9 to 3, report the
same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution
be adopted.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION
The resolution provides closed rules for H.J. Res. 70, H.J.
Res. 71, H.J. Res. 72, H.J. Res. 73, and H.R. 3230. The
resolution provides 30 minutes of debate on each measure
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The
resolution waives all points of order against consideration
of each measure and provides that each measure shall be
considered as read. The resolution waives all points of order
against provisions in each measure. The resolution provides
one motion to recommit each measure.
Section 4 of the resolution provides that it shall be in
order at any time through the calendar day of October 6,
2013, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House
suspend the rules and that the Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS
The waiver of all points of order against consideration of
H.J. Res. 70, H.J. Res. 71, H.J. Res. 72, H.J. Res. 73, and
H.R. 3230 includes a waiver of clause 11 of rule XXI,
prohibiting the consideration of a bill or joint resolution
which has not been reported by a committee until the third
calendar day (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays
except when the House is in session on such a day) on which
such measure has been available to Members, Delegates, and
the Resident Commissioner.
The waiver of all points of order against consideration of
H.J. Res. 73 and H.R. 3230 also includes a waiver of Clause
9(a)(2) of rule XXI, which prohibits consideration of a bill
or joint resolution not reported by a committee, unless the
chair of each committee of initial referral has caused a list
of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited
tariff benefits in the bill or a statement that the
proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the
Congressional Record prior to its consideration. However, it
is important to note that the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations submitted an earmark statement to the House on
October 2, 2013 for printing in the Congressional Record. The
statement affirms that the measures do not contain any
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits
under the meaning of the rule.
Although the resolution waives all points of order against
provisions in H.J. Res. 70, H.J. Res. 71, H.J. Res. 72, H.J.
Res. 73, and H.R. 3230, the Committee is not aware of any
points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature.
COMMITTEE VOTES
The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion
to report, together with the names of those voting for and
against, are printed below:
Rules Committee record vote No. 78
Motion by Ms. Slaughter to make in order the clean Senate
Continuing Resolution so we can send it to the President for
his signature today. Defeated: 3-9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members:
Ms. Foxx.................................................. Nay
Mr. Bishop of Utah........................................ Nay
Mr. Cole.................................................. Nay
Mr. Woodall............................................... Nay
Mr. Nugent................................................ Nay
Mr. Webster............................................... Nay
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.......................................... Nay
Mr. Burgess............................................... Nay
Mr. Sessions, Chairman.................................... Nay
Minority Members:
Ms. Slaughter............................................. Yea
Mr. McGovern.............................................. Yea
Mr. Hastings of Florida................................... Yea
Mr. Polis................................................. --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules Committee record vote No. 79
Motion by Ms. Foxx to report the rule. Adopted: 9-3
[[Page H6123]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Members:
Ms. Foxx.................................................. Yea
Mr. Bishop of Utah........................................ Yea
Mr. Cole.................................................. Yea
Mr. Woodall............................................... Yea
Mr. Nugent................................................ Yea
Mr. Webster............................................... Yea
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.......................................... Yea
Mr. Burgess............................................... Yea
Mr. Sessions, Chairman.................................... Yea
Minority Members:
Ms. Slaughter............................................. Nay
Mr. McGovern.............................................. Nay
Mr. Hastings of Florida................................... Nay
Mr. Polis................................................. --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 370
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House any joint resolution
specified in section 2 of this resolution. All points of
order against consideration of each such joint resolution are
waived. Each such joint resolution shall be considered as
read. All points of order against provisions in each such
joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on each such joint resolution and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) 30 minutes of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. The joint resolutions reffered to in the first
section of this resolution are as follows:
(a) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 70) making continuing
appropriations for National Park Service operations, the
Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art, and the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum for fiscal year 2014,
and for other purposes.
(b) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 71) making continuing
appropriations of local funds of the District of Columbia for
fiscal year 2014.
(c) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) making continuing
appropriations for veterans benefits for fiscal year 2014,
and for other purposes.
(d) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 73) making continuing
appropriations for the National Institutes of Health for
fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3230) making
continuing appropriations during a Government shutdown to
provide pay and allowances to members of the reserve
components of the Armed Forces who perform inactive-duty
training during such period. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time through the
calendar day of October 6, 2013, for the Speaker to entertain
motions that the House suspend the rules as though under
clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
{time} 1345
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, we're here today because we don't have a
``my way or the highway'' system of government. We have a system of
government that requires that the people's representatives come
together and build consensus, find a common path forward. And that path
has been illusive, Mr. Speaker.
Oftentimes, as the reading clerk is reading a bill, you'll see
someone ask to waive the reading of the bill, ask unanimous consent
that the bill not be read. I'm so pleased that today we had every
single word of this resolution read, Mr. Speaker, because the words
matter.
I open up a newspaper, it talks about all the division in Washington,
D.C. It talks about all the things on which we cannot agree. And what
we have before us today, Mr. Speaker, is a bill about things on which
we agree.
I hear it from my constituents all the time. They say, Rob, why in
the world can't you all get something done? I understand there are
things that you legitimately disagree about, ideas about which
different parts of the country have different paths forward. But what
about those things on which you agree?
That's what we have here today, Mr. Speaker. There's not a Member in
this body that is celebrating a government shutdown. What we can
celebrate, though, is a path out of the government shutdown. This rule
allows for that today.
I want to read those titles again, Mr. Speaker. H.J. Res. 70, to
reopen our national parks and museums, common ground on which this body
agrees.
H.J. Res. 71, to provide local funding for the District of Columbia.
A lot of folks don't realize, but because the District of Columbia is a
Federal district, the Federal Government provides a little money, but
most of the money comes from the District of Columbia itself. But the
District of Columbia is not allowed to spend its local funds without a
Federal authorization. This does that.
And then, so important, Mr. Speaker, honoring our promise to
America's veterans. I don't believe there's a man or woman in this
Chamber that doesn't believe our veterans deserve the very best service
that we can provide. I don't think there's a man or a woman in this
Chamber who wants to see our VA services halted or curtailed. We solve
that today, Mr. Speaker.
Research for Lifesaving Cures Act, Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 73, to
continue funding at the NIH. NIH makes us all so proud. We do so many
first-in-human trials at the Winship Cancer Institute down just outside
of my district in Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, lifesaving research, lifesaving opportunities caught up
in this government shutdown, not one of those things on which we
disagree; one of those things on which we agree. We have an opportunity
to get that done today.
And, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3230, Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act.
Again, there's a lot to be frustrated about here today. And I know
folks back home, Mr. Speaker, in your district and in mine, they have a
lot to be frustrated about too. But one bright moment in this debate
came late on Saturday night when we came together unanimously and said,
whatever our disagreements here, our men and women in uniform should
not get caught up in it. Pay our troops first. It brought us together.
Not just in this House, Mr. Speaker, we have the ability to come
together, but also in the Senate, where, by unanimous consent, they
passed that bill. It went to the President's desk.
But what that bill did not include, and what I believe we all believe
it should have included, was funding for our National Guard and our
Reserve. This bill gives us the opportunity to solve that today.
Mr. Speaker, we tried to bring up three of these five bills yesterday
under a process they call suspension of the rules. It requires two-
thirds of the House to support it. But because we unanimously supported
our troops last week, we assumed that we would be able to unanimously
support our veterans, unanimously support our folks here in the
District of Columbia, using their local forums, unanimously support our
parks and our monuments, and we were wrong.
I'll say to my friends, I don't know if they looked at the numbers--
80 percent of my friends on the other side of the aisle said no. They
said yes, this is something on which we agree, but no, we are not going
to participate in solving that problem. We want that problem to persist
until you solve all the problems.
Mr. Speaker, I'll close with this. One of our great patriots during
the American Revolution, Edmund Burke, said, No man does worse than he
who does nothing because he can only do a little.
Mr. Speaker, I concede that some of the things we're working on today
might seem like a little. But we have the opportunity to help people.
We have an opportunity to make a difference, and shame on us if we do
nothing because we can only do a little.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H6124]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, good day to you. I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
I think if Edmund Burke were alive today he would say that what we're
really doing is so very little it's shameful, when we could do so much.
I want to say this, and I want to say it about every chance I get. We
could stop this today.
We have just come from a 3-hour Rules meeting and hearing people on
the floor and a lot of my colleagues, I have the sense that they don't
have any idea what a government shutdown was. All of a sudden it's
starting to hurt. Let's pick this piece over here, that one over there,
and we can fix that.
800,000 people who work for the United States Government are being
used as pawns. We are hurting all of the citizens of the United States
who need the services that those 800,000 people provide.
We have one thing to do, Mr. Speaker, one thing: we can take from
this desk and concur with the Senate CR. That's it. It doesn't have to
go back to the Senate. It can go directly to the President of the
United States, maybe even before the big meeting today. Sign it and
it's over with. But no, we're not going to do that.
Now, don't believe that this bill was written today because there is
a particularly sympathy for patients at NIH or the visitors to the
national parks or the citizens of the District of Columbia. These
proposals are cynical attempts to make these things pinch just a little
bit less.
Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that 30 sick children,
most with cancer, were turned away from NIH clinical trials because of
the government shutdown. Should they be pawns in this political,
cynical game to hurt the health care bill?
This morning, the majority proposes to reopen NIH, or part of it.
Yesterday, the TV cameras were dispatched around the country to capture
the footage of museums and monuments closed. This morning the majority
proposes they're going to open those sites.
The majority's making itself clear: anytime they see a bad headline,
they're going to bring a bill to the floor to make it go away. At this
rate, it could be a year from now before we ever finally come to some
conclusion thereon, because nobody has said anything about what the end
game is here.
How long are you going to hold the government, the country hostage?
Surely it doesn't have anything to do with health care anymore, after
yesterday.
Now, if the majority really cared, we'd reopen the entire government,
all of NIH, national parks right here, right now on this floor in this
action we're taking today.
If the majority held a simple vote on a clean version of the Senate
CR, the government shutdown would be closed upon the President's
signature.
This afternoon I will give every Member of this Chamber a chance to
do just that, as I did just in the Rules Committee. I want you to know
that the opportunity to vote for the CR, end the government shutdown,
failed 9-4 on a party-line vote. That tells us something about why
we're here today and what the purpose is for all of this.
Let me be clear. This amendment is the only chance that this Chamber
may ever have to end the government shutdown. If this Chamber supports
my amendment, we will pass a clean CR this afternoon.
Now, if the majority really cared about helping those cancer
patients' access to health care or letting the World War II veterans
visit the monuments and reopening the doors of the Nation's parks and
museums, they will vote for my amendment.
The VA, by the way, has announced today that they are running out of
money. Furthermore, passing a clean CR would actually do more to help
the Nation's veterans than the majority's proposal to fund the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Under the majority's proposal, the VA would receive $6 billion less
than if we simply passed the CR which, in other words, has $6 billion
more for the veterans than what you're proposing today.
So for all the cries of concern, the majority's desire to shortchange
the veterans by $6 billion tells you all that you need to know. And the
veterans understand that. They know that they're being used as a pawn
in this cynical, political game, and they resent it.
Far from honest policy, today's proposals are more cynical politics.
For almost a week, the majority has found itself in a legislative box,
or at least I thought so until a little while ago, and the Rules
Committee vote, and when they voted 9-4 not to open up the government,
I realized that that was the aim all along.
Now, because the Senate voted for cloture on a clean funding bill, a
simple majority of Senators have been able to put an end to the
repeated attempts to dismantle the Affordable Health Care Bill.
Now, under these circumstances, the majority knows they can't keep
proposing ransom demands, so they've broken cloture and returned to a
60-vote threshold in the Senate. The need to break cloture is why they
tried to go to conference 15 minutes before the government shutdown,
and that's why they are continuing to avoid a clean vote on the Senate
CR today.
Mr. Speaker, two paragraphs in The Washington Post this morning sum
up what this fight always has been and continues to be about: defunding
the Affordable Care Act and taking health care away from 300 million
Americans who have no insurance.
Referring to yesterday's events, Ezra Klein of The Washington Post
wrote:
The top story all day was that Republicans had shut down
the Federal Government because President Obama would not
defund or delay the Affordable Care Act. The other major
story was that the government servers were crashing because
so many people were trying to see if they could get the
insurance through ObamaCare. On the one hand, Washington was
shut down because Republicans don't want citizens to have
ObamaCare. On the other hand, ObamaCare was shut down because
so many Americans did want that insurance.
Yesterday was, indeed, a historic day for our Nation and for every
American who's ever been denied access to health care. In my home State
of New York, there were more than 2 million visits to our online
exchange in less than 90 minutes.
And by later in the day, the last number that I have, just for
yesterday, 10 million people had visited the Web site at the end of the
day. That is about 12 percent of the entire population of the State of
New York, yesterday.
Meanwhile, 4.7 million people visited healthcare.gov yesterday--
that's the national database--while almost 100,000 more visited online
exchanges in Illinois, in Colorado. Most importantly, in States from
Kentucky to California, in red States and blue States, thousands of
Americans went to sleep last night having purchased health insurance
through the newly launched exchanges.
Now, while these Americans went to bed realizing their long-awaited
dream, the majority woke up this morning realizing that their worst
nightmare had come true. Despite their best efforts, the American
people were finally given access to safe and affordable health care.
Now, the only question that remains is if the majority will finally
acknowledge reality, or if they will keep the government closed while
they continue their quest to take American's health care away.
I'm extremely grateful to the chairman of my committee this morning,
when he said, when we called for a vote on funding the government
today, he said, and I quote, ``I would say on behalf of the majority,
what we think we are doing here today is probably some straight-line
Republican viewpoints.''
I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the majority's latest
gimmicks by voting ``no'' on the rule and the underlying legislation,
and vote ``no'' on the PQ so that we can put our amendment on the
floor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to my
friend that we have an opportunity to do something today. There's been
a lot of talk on this floor. We have an opportunity to actually do
something, and I don't think there's going to be a single Member on the
other side of the aisle that challenges the notion that, if we pass
these bills, we will make a difference for American veterans, we will
make a difference for American families, and we will make a difference
for American Guardsmen and Reservists.
[[Page H6125]]
And I do not believe that the heart of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle is that, because we can only do a little, we should
do nothing.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a good friend and great leader in this
institution,
{time} 1400
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying
resolutions.
The situation in which we find ourselves is as unfortunate as it is
unnecessary. The House has voted three times to fund the government.
It's been rejected three times by the Senate Democrats. With each
successive vote, the House compromised on its position that ObamaCare
should be defunded.
Our most recent offer would have delayed the individual mandate for 1
year and ended the congressional exemption from ObamaCare. Nine House
Democrats supported this proposal, which would give American families
the same relief from ObamaCare that President Obama unilaterally gave
Big Businesses. But, again, Harry Reid said ``no.''
As we wait for Senate Democrats to come to the table, the House will
continue its efforts to restart government operations.
Two areas we seek to fund today--national parks and veterans
benefits--hit incredibly close to home. The district I represent in
east Tennessee includes parts of the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park. The Smokies are more than a natural wonder. They are an important
part of the economy in Sevier County, Tennessee.
Dale Ditmanson, the park's superintendent, told me that 1.1 million
people typically visit the park in October; but as long as the gates to
the park remain closed, hotels, restaurants, and other parts of the
service industry in that county will suffer.
Even more important than reopening our national parks is meeting our
commitment to America's veterans. I'm privileged to serve on the
nonpartisan Veterans' Affairs Committee; and as a veteran myself, I
hope we can come together on a bipartisan basis to provide funding for
processing disability claims and for benefits like the GI Bill and VA
home loans. How could anyone stand in opposition to those who have
stood in the line of fire to keep this country free? The answer is
President Obama, who has promised to veto such a bill. This is
unconscionable.
These funding bills represent a series of commonsense steps to get
more of the government back online and to meet our commitments to the
American people. After all, I wasn't elected and sent here by my
constituents to shut down the government. I was sent here to reform it,
to make it smaller, and to make it more accountable.
I urge my colleagues to support the underlying rule and the
underlying bills.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it
would be the best of common sense for us to end this charade today. But
I understand now, because I've heard it twice, that the intent really
is to wait and whittle down the government. As Grover Norquist, I
believe, famously said, he would like to shrink it down to drown it in
the bathtub.
I think we're in the process of doing that today by funding it a
little piece here, a little piece there, and the devil take the
hindmost.
I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. We are now in day two of a Republican-
created shutdown.
While my Republican colleagues drag their feet on allowing an up-or-
down vote on the Senate's clean continuing resolution, vital research
at the NIH has been halted, student loan processing has been delayed,
and veterans can't apply for a VA home loan.
The same bills that this rule will bring to the floor have already
been debated and voted on. My colleagues are not being reasonable, to
say the least. Because Republicans didn't get their way yesterday, they
now bring the same bills up again, only this time under regular order.
They will get their 216 votes, but they know and I know that this
action does nothing to advance the ball. It does nothing to get us
closer to a solution.
I remind my colleagues that House Democrats are willing to accept a
clean CR at the levels that House Republicans have demanded. It's not
what we want, but we compromised in an effort to do the business of the
people.
The votes are here, Mr. Speaker, for a clean CR. Every Democrat, I
believe, will vote for a clean CR. And many Republicans will do the
same.
We're asking you to compromise. Your refusal to compromise has shut
down this government. And for what? Political theater.
I repeat, the votes are here. Prove me wrong.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, in my prior life, as many of you know, I was
a trial judge. I presided over thousands of very difficult cases. So
often, jurors could not agree, but they worked hard without a political
agenda. They reasoned together and administered justice.
Let us reason together. Let's get the CR passed today.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to say to my
friend that there's a little revisionist history in that recitation.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the House passed its package,
and the Senate said, No, it's our way or the highway. So the House
said, Well, let me give you a different package--one that is a little
closer to that position. The Senate said, No, it's my way or the
highway.
Then the House said, Let me give you a third position that's a little
closer to you. And the Senate said a third time, No, it's my way or the
highway. And then the House said, Well, come and sit down with me at
the table so that we can find a way through our differences. And the
Senate said, No, it's my way or the highway.
The American people know who's looking for common ground and
consensus in this body.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Miller), a real supporter of finding that pathway
forward, the chairwoman of the House Administration Committee.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly thank my colleague for yielding
the time.
Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, just 3 days ago, this House unanimously
passed the Pay Our Military Act. The Senate unanimously passed the same
bill, and the President signed it into law.
That was 3 days ago. That legislation guaranteed that all members of
our Armed Forces would receive their pay for their service during any
government shutdown. And that law also applies to full-time Guard and
Reserve members. Yet Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has improperly
furloughed countless Guardsmen and -women across the country, in
violation of the intent of that law.
Mr. Speaker, today, a bipartisan group of myself and my colleagues
will be sending a letter to Secretary Hagel demanding that he enforce
this law properly and to send our Guardsmen and -women back to work.
Today, we will also consider legislation that will provide for
funding to make certain that the Guardsmen on inactive status are paid
as well and allowed to continue to train during a government shutdown.
This readiness is absolutely essential to the protection of our great
Nation. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is needlessly furloughing
Guardsmen who are essential to defending our great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, President Obama sent a letter to Federal
workers telling them they should not be used as punching bags, but that
is exactly what his administration is doing to members of our National
Guard.
In fact, this is the same thing this administration did when the
sequester was enforced.
They immediately shut down the White House to tours.
They scared the public into believing that their travel plans would
be interrupted at our airports.
They tried in every possible way to hurt and to scare the public as
much as possible.
And they are once again playing true to form, this time harming our
National Guard to make a political point.
Now, I know that our friends on the other side of the aisle say that
they're going to oppose this legislation because they say that they
need an entire government funding bill or nothing at all.
[[Page H6126]]
And yet they are calling Republicans the absolutists. That's what
they're calling us? Seriously.
I would just say to my Democratic friends that we aren't asking you
to repeal ObamaCare in order to make certain that our National Guard
gets paid. We are just asking our Democratic friends to pay the
National Guard, for goodness sake.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I heard some Members on the other side, our
Democratic friends, say that what we are talking about here is just a
fig leaf or a distraction. Mr. Speaker, I do not consider paying our
National Guard a fig leaf or a distraction. I consider our National
Guard to be warriors essential to the defense of this Nation.
I would urge this House to pass this legislation that will allow our
men and women who serve so bravely in our National Guard to do their
job and to protect our freedoms.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and also the underlying bills.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that the
three bills that everybody is so proud of that they've put out to try
to re-fund the Government have a dagger at the heart of the health care
bill and would have destroyed it.
I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Well, Mr. Speaker, here we are, on Day 2 of the
Republican shutdown of the Nation's government, and the Republican
majority has come up with yet another bit of meaningless political
theater.
Yesterday's strategy from the gang that couldn't shoot straight was
to bring up a small handful of bills to fund popular government
programs and to try to pass them on suspension. That failed. Today's
nonsense is to bring up those same bills under this rule and try to
pass them with a majority vote.
Now, just for a moment, let's leave aside the fact that none of these
bills are going anywhere. The Senate isn't going to go along with this,
and neither is the President. So all of this is just a gigantic waste
of time, which is one of the few things the majority is good at.
We say it all the time around here: budgets are about priorities.
Budgets reflect things that you believe are most important to support.
And yesterday we learned all about the priorities of the Republican
leadership. The first bill they brought up for debate--the one that
they wanted to get over to the Senate most quickly--was a bill to fund
the national parks and monuments. Now, I like the national parks. In
fact, I love them. I support their full funding. I even believe they
should get more funding than they would receive under the lousy
Republican sequester numbers. But that's their number one priority?
What about the researchers at the Centers for Disease Control who
protect us from epidemics? More than 8,700 people have already been
furloughed from the CDC. I hope my Republican colleagues have gotten
their flu shots, Mr. Speaker.
What about the low-income mother who has been cut off from WIC? What
about the children who have been turned away from the Head Start
programs?
No, they want to fund parks. And why? Let's be honest about this.
Because right now every television network in America has a camera crew
down at the National Mall interviewing disappointed tourists and taking
pictures of the ``Closed'' signs on the Smithsonian museums. Because
today, camera crews in California and Wyoming and Montana will be
taking pictures of visitors turned away from Yosemite and Yellowstone
and Glacier National Park.
Mr. Speaker, when my kids were little, we used to give them trail mix
as a snack. There was granola and raisins and nuts and all kinds of
healthy things. But my kids always wanted to pick out the M&Ms. That's
what this Republican majority has been reduced to--trying to pick out
the M&Ms from the trail mix. Eventually, my kids grew up. I hope the
Republican majority will do the same.
We can do this right away. We can do this today. We can do this right
now. We can pass the clean continuing resolution that has already
passed the Senate. That's the way you keep the government functioning
while the two Chambers work out their differences.
The notion that you're shutting the government down on a 5-week
continuing resolution when we still have to negotiate a long-term
spending bill is unconscionable. People all across this country,
Democrats and Republicans, are outraged by the behavior of this
Republican leadership. It is time to grow up. It is time to pass a
clean continuing resolution.
Let's open up this government. Let's open it up today.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it's clear we're going to hear more ``it's
my way or the highway'' from the other side throughout today.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), a
freshman Member of this body who believes that there is a pathway
forward and that we can make a difference.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support this rule, which would allow the House to vote on the Pay Our
Guard and Reserve Act and the Honoring Our Promise to America's
Veterans Act.
The Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act provides funding for the pay and
allowances of military personnel in the Reserve component who are in
inactive status.
Like most of us, my office has been flooded with phone calls and
emails sharing real-life stories about how this government shutdown is
negatively impacting the folks that we represent. This government
shutdown is such a disappointment. In the meantime, there's no logical
reason for members of the military, Reserves, veterans, and their
families to go one more day without the support they deserve.
According to an article in the Indy Star, about 600 full-time
civilian employees and Air Force Reservists have been furloughed at
Grissom Air Reserve Base located in Miami County. This could affect the
ability for Grissom Air Reserve Base to maintain their operational
readiness.
The Peru Tribune, Miami County's hometown paper, stated:
Reservists were told to go home.
One thousand Indiana National Guard employees were furloughed on
Tuesday. Indiana has the fourth largest National Guard in the country.
{time} 1415
We're proud that our brave men and women so strongly represent the
Guard and a steadfast commitment to our country.
This is so unfair to our Hoosier heroes who fight every day.
Indiana's Second District is home to more than 53,000 veterans. One of
them called my office yesterday expressing concern about losing access
to VA health services.
The Honoring Our Promise to America's Veterans Act provides immediate
funding to ensure the continuation of veterans' disability payments,
the GI Bill, education training, and VA home loans. Passing these bills
is the least we can do.
I urge my colleagues to put politics aside. Be fair to the
individuals and the families who have sacrificed everything for the
continued defense of this Nation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, just 10 seconds to say let's not do the
least we can do. This is the day we can open up the government and
serve our people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my dear friend, the ranking member of the Rules
Committee.
I had a prepared talk, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to give it. I'm
going to respond to the distinguished manager who has used phrases like
``revisionist history'' and ``my way or the highway.'' You know, those
are words that are worthy of what surrounds this issue, but they are,
of course, exactly the opposite of what the distinguished manager
suggests.
It wasn't this side of the aisle that said: We'll fund the government
on a condition, and that condition is you have to agree to what we
could not achieve legislatively, what we could not achieve in the
courts, what we could not achieve at the ballot box; we're going to
hold you hostage. You're going to do it, or else.
You're right, it's my way or the highway, but it's you who are saying
``my
[[Page H6127]]
way or the highway''--one might say you.
In terms of revisionist history, this idea that we're just trying to
help veterans and the National Guard and that's the least we can do,
well, what about all the other agencies of the Federal Government? What
about the rest of the people that need to be served?
I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, my
family has participated in the National Guard. My nephew has been in
the National Guard--still is. He has served two tours of duty in Iraq
and one tour of duty in Afghanistan. He is now a Blackhawk helicopter
pilot for the National Guard and ready to go again.
I and my family and my colleagues need no lecture about patriotism
and about service to country. What we do want--and what my nephew wants
and all like him--is that we stand up in this Congress and fund the
government. That's the least we can do for National Guardsmen and for
the clerk who processes applications for people to qualify for Social
Security. We owe that to our constituents. We owe that to our country.
Can we put aside the issues of revision and ``my way or the highway''
and come together and have a clean continuing resolution--buy ourselves
some time to continue the debate on ancillary issues, but stop the
hostage-taking for the sake of my nephew, and perhaps yours?
It is time to put an end to this reckless Republican shutdown. We are
now in day 2 of this manufactured crisis, in which House Republicans
are holding hostage the American people and the essential government
services on which they rely.
The cavalier nature in which Republicans have allowed this shutdown
to occur--if not outright advocated for it--is shameful. Some have even
suggested that the shutdown has gone largely unnoticed. That is
outrageous! Do they not see the very real pain they are causing in
their own communities? I suggest they visit with some of the 10,000
seniors a day who now have to wait for their Medicare enrollment to be
processed . . . or the small businesses that cannot open their doors
and hire new workers because SBA loans have been put on hold . . . or
the dedicated men and women of our federal workforce--the majority of
whom live outside the DC region in their communities--who protect our
borders, safeguard our food supply, and respond to natural disasters
and now have to worry about how to pay their mortgages.
Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans say it is unacceptable for
Republicans to shut down the government to meet their narrow, partisan
demands. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--along with the Prince William
and Fairfax Chambers in my district--has urged Congress to fund the
government and raise the debt ceiling without any extraneous provisions
for fear of disrupting the economy.
That is what Democrats have offered to do, but House Republicans
refuse to compromise on their demand to defund or delay the Affordable
Care Act. Mr. Speaker, it's like our Republican colleagues have been
overcome by a mass psychosis to satiate the rabid demands of the Tea
Party crowd.
We know there are some sensible members on the other side of the
aisle who want to do the right thing. I implore them to prevail upon
their leadership to work with us in bipartisan fashion to end this
shutdown.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Members are reminded to
address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to my friend from Virginia, before he leaves the floor,
that I'm grateful to his nephew for his service. I, too, represent a
part of the world where service is not an opportunity but an
obligation.
I would say, as my friend knows very well, this body, this United
States House, in June, passed our Veterans and Military Construction
appropriations bill. This whole idea that you're supposed to fund the
government in one giant bill is more of that revisionist history.
That's exactly the wrong way to fund the government.
The way the government is supposed to be funded, as you know, Mr.
Speaker, is that we're supposed to fund it one piece at a time--that's
the way it always has been, the way it always should be--because you
end up looking to see where those funding priorities are.
So this House, Mr. Speaker, in June, with only four dissenting votes,
passed a bill affirming the financial commitment that this Nation
should have to our veterans, and it has been sitting, gathering dust,
in the United States Senate since June.
Funding for all veterans ran out on September 30. We all knew that.
We knew it last September 30 that funding was going to run out this
September 30, which is why this House has moved forward on
appropriations bills. The Senate has moved forward on zero, Mr.
Speaker. That's why it's my way or the highway.
There's a right way to get this done, and we've been trying to do it
here. The Senate won't do it the right way. They want to do it their
way--and a way that doesn't serve folks back home the way you and I,
Mr. Speaker, know that they are entitled to be served.
You have not heard one voice on this floor today dispute that the
bills we have before us would make a difference in the lives of
American families. You've had folks say it doesn't do enough, but you
haven't had folks say it doesn't do what it's intended to do. We have
an opportunity to do some good. Let's do it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, what I'd like to know is why the
Republicans are so afraid of the Affordable Care Act. Is it because it
makes health care affordable to millions?
The Republicans have spread fear about the ACA for so long, it's no
wonder people are afraid. Well, maybe they're afraid because the ACA is
going to work. In fact, the ACA is already working--making health care
accessible and lowering health care costs. It's increasing competition
amongst insurance providers.
But here's what's happening: Republicans don't like the ACA, so they
crash the government to get their way. That's no way to govern. You
don't like the law, so you crash the government?
Republicans don't like environmental regulations and the EPA. Are
they going to crash the government to eliminate them?
Are they going to crash the government to roll back the Dodd-Frank
law?
This sets a horrible and reckless precedent, threatening 200 years of
governance. There's a better way: Work together with people you
disagree with to make this a better country.
Now the Republicans are using a cynical effort to peel Democrats to
their side. The real way to honor veterans is to uphold the rule of law
that they fought so hard and sacrificed for.
The ACA is the law. Let's fight to uphold the law. There will be
glitches in the ACA, and some things should be improved. Let's work
together to make it work for all Americans.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague in the Rules Committee earlier said if we could just get
a few of us together around the table we could sort this out. I believe
that. I absolutely believe that. If we could just sit down around the
table and talk to each other, get together on the facts, we could sort
this out. But we're not even together on the facts, Mr. Speaker.
My colleague just talked about how we're taking away 250 years of
American governance with this government shutdown. I don't celebrate
this shutdown. I wish the Senate would have come to the table so we
wouldn't have had a shutdown. But the truth is, Mr. Speaker, in the 16
years that Republicans have controlled this body, this is the third
shutdown that has the great misfortune of occurring.
I came along in the Carter administration. I'm from the State of
Georgia; President Carter is from the State of Georgia. You go back to
the Carter administration, come 16 years forward, Democrats controlled
this institution, shut the government down 15 times. In the Carter
administration, Mr. Speaker, it was all Democrats--Democrats in the
White House, Democrats running the U.S. House, Democrats running the
U.S. Senate, shut down the government five times for more than 50 days.
I don't celebrate that, but I do recognize that when people refuse to
sit down and talk to each other that is sometimes the outcome. It
didn't have to be the outcome this time, but here we are.
So we can either throw up our hands in disgust or we can start
pointing the fingers of blame or we can do something about it. Again,
Mr. Speaker, not one Member of this body has come to
[[Page H6128]]
the floor to attest that the passage of this rule and the passage of
these underlying bills wouldn't make a difference for American
families--and the reason they haven't is because they would.
I understand we're going to continue to disagree, but let's do those
things on which we agree. These five bills contain the first of those
ideas. And I commit to my colleagues, if we can begin this process
today, we can be right back here tomorrow doing more of it.
Wonder of wonders, Mr. Speaker, if we start working together and
doing those things that we know our constituents want us to do, we
might just find a way out. We might just make constituents back home
proud. We can and we should.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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, let me thank the gentlelady from New
York, and certainly my good friend on the Rules Committee. We see each
other often in his work, and I know his passion and commitment. And as
I walked on the floor today, I was listening to him recount history.
But the history of shutdowns of years past will not help us be guided
by our hearts and our minds today.
The American people are asking not for a recounting of historical
perspective--years past that have been solved, Congresses who came
together, patriots who stood in the line of fire and have lost their
lives long since those particular shutdowns have occurred--we owe the
American people today an answer.
I just came from the east steps of the United States Capitol. It's a
very somber place. It's a place of joy, but it's a place of
remembrance. If my good friend wants to remember anything, he needs to
remember 9/11, when Members of Congress poured out of this place to
show America that we were not going to be undermined by terrorists,
that we were going to stand united together. That was a moment that
America looked to with pride as we sang ``God Bless America.''
Today we stood on the steps, standing with Members of Congress who
actually were wounded in Iraq and veterans who are now Members of
Congress, and we asked for another moment of unity--unity to be able to
address real issues in this House, to put 800,000 workers back to work
who are not working for themselves in the Federal Government but are
processing veterans' benefits and Social Security and Medicare. We
asked for this Speaker and this Republican Conference and Tea Party-
driven Members to put all of that aside.
Let us recount the history of the unity that was shown on those
steps, so symbolic when we come together--at that time on 9/11, we came
together as Republicans and Democrats--and vote for a clean CR.
The idea that national parks are important, they're right, they are
important. The idea that the National Guard is important, they're
right, it is important. Right now, Ellington Field is shut down that
the National Guard in Texas used, and they are there as front liners
for our borders and needs in that area. It is shut down.
The National Institutes of Health is one of these bills, D.C. and the
veterans. All of those are important. But I will tell you, just as
important are the men and women in the FBI and the DEA, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, or the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that
are on the front lines of ensuring the safety and security of America.
More funding for those in Homeland Security that are not presently
being funded by fees are very, very important, and that is not on this
list. So recounting the history doesn't do us any good.
The National Institutes of Health, all of us who have had conditions
such as what I've had and surviving breast cancer realize the
importance of it. But we will not, Mr. Speaker, piecemeal. What we want
is what we want for America--unity.
Mr. Speaker, we want a clean CR. Put it on the floor now. We will
vote now. We will vote now.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my concern with this rule is it
allows us to debate and vote on four bills. Each of these bills picks
and chooses what government program should be open, what is most
important.
I guess of all these four bills, the one I find the most cynical is
the one that didn't pass last night under suspension, H.J. Res. 72, the
partisan resolution that will cut $6 billion from our Nation's veterans
from what passed the House this last June.
{time} 1430
There are many issues that divide our parties. One of the issues that
has always received bipartisan support is supporting our Nation's
heroes and their families.
Unfortunately, due to the extreme views of some in the majority, this
Chamber is now considering a resolution that will cut $6.2 billion from
the VA and excludes funding for several VA programs which are vital to
the thousands of veterans in my district, including national veterans
cemeteries, VA construction, and grants for State veterans homes and
State cemeteries.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation's veterans deserve better. I call on this
Chamber to demand a vote on the full VA for the entire year. Every day
that goes by without full appropriations for the VA is another day that
our veterans are being harmed and denied the support and services they
paid for with blood, sweat, and sacrifice.
Let me explain it again. This House on a very bipartisan vote in June
voted for a VA appropriations bill that was $6.6 billion more than what
we are considering today. So this would be a cut in what we need. In
fact, even the one in June is not enough. But this makes it even worse.
That is why this is the most cynical of all these bills.
What we need to do is come here on the floor and pass a clean CR and
get the government back to work. Don't pick and choose here, don't
waste the time of the American people. Let's have a clean CR today and
vote and get the government back to work today.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to ask my friend
from Texas whose words had an impact on me.
My friend from Texas who was talking about the bill we passed in
June, I happen to share his commitment to that legislation. It is my
understanding that that legislation is sitting today, as it has been
since June, in the Senate, and they could take it up and pass it and
not fund veterans just for a week or 10 days, but fund those programs
at those levels for the entire year.
I would ask my friend if he would join with me in calling on the
Senate to do exactly that.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Texas.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I support our veterans. I voted for the one
in June, like a majority of both our conferences and caucuses. You and
I can't control the Senate, but we can control what is on the floor
today. This bill cuts $6 billion, which you and I supported in June.
That is the issue we have on the floor today.
I want a clean CR and I would like to have regular order for our
appropriations. We will deal with the Senate, but we need to get our
act together here in the House.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I say to my friend that the clean CR
that he is advocating so passionately for cuts the exact same $6
billion that he said is a problem. I agree with him that that's a
problem. I hope we won't do that. I hope the Senate will take up that
bill.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Radel), a new Member of this body, but one who brings
commonsense idea after commonsense idea, bipartisan idea after
bipartisan idea to the Rules Committee.
Mr. RADEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for this
time.
We are here today trying to do some pretty simple things--trying to
support our veterans, keep open Veterans Affairs, open up our parks
around this
[[Page H6129]]
great Nation, and even keep open schools right here in D.C. Heck, I
take the Metro every single day. I am here supporting this. Do you know
what? Even last night we saw House Democrats that are supporting the
same causes.
The problem today really lies with Senate Democrats. They simply are
refusing to come to the negotiating table just to even talk with us.
I have been in Washington working through the weekend--many of us
have been here until 3 in the morning every night working--to simply
keep the government open. But no offer has been good enough for the
Senate, not one. They have rejected every single compromise that we
have sent them.
Compromise is essential, especially when we have a time of divided
government, because we are here to pass laws--sometimes repeal them--
but most of all to govern, to give certainty and stability to this
great Nation.
We have sent four different bills to the Senate to keep government
open. All of them have been rejected. We even sent legislation to
simply offer a small group of Members to come to the negotiating table
to compromise, again, with the Senate to keep government open. The
Senate rejected us time and time again.
It is a sad day when we can't even get Democrat Senators to come to
just have a conversation with us to keep government open. In fact, this
is ridiculous. It is a disservice to the American people. I knew
Washington was broken before coming here, but the Senate's pure refusal
to even work with the House is an all-time low.
As a result of the Senate's actions, we now have a government
officially shut down. Parents all across the country are now worrying
where their next paycheck is going to come from, how they are going to
pay their mortgage, how they are going to pay their rent, how they are
going to put food on their kid's table all because Democrats won't have
a conversation.
I don't think it is unreasonable for us in all of these compromises
that House Republicans--and some House Democrats--I don't think it is
unreasonable to ask for a simple 1-year delay of the individual
mandate. After all, the President himself has already delayed ObamaCare
for big business. Think about that. Big business, big corporations, are
exempt from this law, but you are not.
He has delayed this, he has delayed the launch of online enrollment
for small business, even delayed the Spanish language version of the
Web site: If you all speak Spanish, good luck--si ustedes hablan
espanol, buena suerte.
The President has been willing to exempt everyone from this signature
piece of legislation, except for you. Yesterday, when you went to
healthcare.gov to sign up, most people saw glitches and errors. The
administration has had 3 years--3 years--to build a Web site which a 14
year old can do in his parents' basement today.
Again, ObamaCare is just not ready for prime time. All we are asking
is just for this small piece to be delayed. It is a compromise that I
think all of us can live with.
I stand here ready to work with the Senate to get the government open
and do the right thing for you and this great Nation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), ranking member on the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food
and Drug Administration.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, give us back our government.
I am on the Appropriations Committee. We shouldn't be talking about
CRs; we should be talking about passing appropriations bills. But those
were stopped, and we are now down to the emergency tool that we have
had to use over and over again to continue government operations.
I have been here 20 years. We have done CRs many times. We have
never, ever had a pre-condition to a CR.
People are not entitled to make up facts here. The facts are that the
Senate is negotiating and the House Democrats are negotiating. We came
up with your numbers. We hate those numbers, but we swallowed them.
There is only one thing to do--reject this proposition. Vote ``no''
on the rule and vote ``no'' on the ability to bring the rule up. We
have a bill here. It is in the House right now. It is the Senate
version. It is clean. Send it to the President and before tonight it is
all over and people can come back to work tomorrow--tomorrow.
So stop this game playing, this selfishness, this poor loser and this
whining and just get on with doing the business you were elected to do.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to agree with my
friend that folks are not entitled to their own facts. The fact is that
the law of the land is the budget number that the Senate is proposing.
There is no set of circumstances you can spend a penny more than that.
In fact, as all of my colleagues know, beginning on January 1 that
number is going to drop another $19 billion.
To suggest that the Senate is compromising by agreeing to follow the
law of the land says a lot about where we are in this town, but it says
absolutely nothing about genuine compromise.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if the bills that are on the floor today
pass unanimously--which they won't--here is what happens next. They go
to the Senate, the Senate maybe takes them up, maybe doesn't take them
up, passes them, maybe doesn't pass them, and this whole charade
continues.
If you want to get the veterans programs funded today, if you want to
get the programs for the parks funded today, if you want to get the NIH
funded today, there is a way to do it. It is to take up the bill that
the Senate has passed, that the President says he will sign, that at
least 14 Members of the majority have said publicly they will vote
for--I think it is many, many more than that--put it on the floor and
take a vote. That is the way to do this. That bill would go directly to
the desk of the President of the United States. Before the day is over
the government would be funded.
If that is what you really want to do, you would put that bill on the
floor, and we would take a vote on it. I would just ask any Member of
the majority to tell us why we can't do that.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it gives me great pleasure to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), a
new Member of this body, but a growing leader in this body.
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, just hours after the President and Senate
Democrats refused to compromise, causing our government to shut down,
ObamaCare exchanges opened for business. Folks across the aisle said
yesterday was a day to celebrate, but it is clear that is simply not
the case.
The President likened the ObamaCare rollout to a new Apple product.
But the difference is that the American people are not forced to buy
iPods, and this is not just about buying a new technological gadget,
but something extremely important and personal--your health care.
As soon as the ObamaCare exchanges became available online, there
were immediate problems and glitches. The administration had to know
millions of Americans would be trying to get on the site yesterday, and
yet they still didn't account for the traffic.
Mr. Speaker, not only has the administration forced an individual
mandate on the American people--they haven't even adequately prepared
for it. The arrogance of this law is becoming more and more apparent.
The administration is more concerned about getting ObamaCare off the
ground than whether or not it actually works.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, last night, the GOP followed through with
their threat to shut down the government if they didn't get what they
lacked the votes to obtain--the destruction of health care reform. It
was staggeringly irresponsible, but the leadership was not willing to
buck their Tea Party membership and meet even the most basic obligation
of governance--to keep the lights on.
[[Page H6130]]
I can only hope that this shutdown is short-lived and we pass a basic
funding bill soon. A small group of Members cannot be allowed to burn
the House down when they don't get their way. We simply cannot continue
to engage in these ``my way or the highway'' exercises every couple of
months.
The Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress, signed by the
President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Democrats are willing to
entertain improvements to this landmark law, but we are not seeking to
undermine or destroy it.
The worst thing about this latest manmade crisis: our economy might
have fully recovered long before now if Congress would just get out of
the way. Let us take up the Senate bill--a clean bill--to keep the
government running and end this latest manmade disaster.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. All we need is less
than 20 Republicans and we can open up the government today. You will
have the Democrats voting to open up the government. Just give us 20
Republican votes and we can open it today.
Instead, because of the Ted Cruz Tea Party faction within your caucus
that somehow has managed to intimidate the Republican leadership, you
are willing to bring this country to its knees--to furlough 800,000
Federal employees, to cause suffering around the country, and to cause
billions of dollars in economic damage to our economy.
How can you do this? This is so wrong.
Today, open it, give us 20 Republican votes. Get our country
functioning again. Let us do our job. This is an outrageous abdication
of responsibility.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to say to my
friend I know he has a lot of Federal employees in his district, as do
I--certainly not as many as he does. I know he speaks from the heart in
terms of the struggles that those families are going through.
But I would say to my friend that while that might be his goal, we
could have taken a step towards it yesterday and all of your VA
employees would have been back and all of your park service employees
would have been back and all of your folks who are in the D.C.
Government would have been protected.
{time} 1445
We could have done it yesterday, and the Democrats defeated it. Now
we are bringing it back today, but we could have made a difference
yesterday, and we didn't.
I would just say to the gentleman that I know his concern for
everyone is heartfelt, but I wish that he would join me in helping at
least someone today. We might get all the way there. I believe that we
can, but we have got to get started. These bills today get us started
in that direction. Again, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment.
Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has
expired.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, and I yield to
the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN. I thank my friend from Georgia.
The problem is that we are creating, really, a politics of
divisiveness here because we are exempting some agencies at the expense
of others. Even in the Department of the Interior, we still have 84
percent of Interior Department employees who will be furloughed even
when we open up the national parks. The vast majority of Federal
employees are without jobs. They may not be as visible to the public,
but it doesn't mean they aren't performing essential services. That's
the problem--picking and choosing. Tomorrow, we will be back with
another agency. That's what we are trying to avoid. We are trying to do
it appropriately.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has
again expired.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to say that it
encourages me that what I hear from my friend is that he doesn't like
our proposal because he thinks it's a policy of divisiveness, and he
would like to move toward those things that unite us. I happen to feel
the same way about these proposals before us.
I think where the Senate is pushing us is a place that divides us,
but that these ideas are common-ground ideas that unite us. While we
may disagree on that, it does give me great encouragement, as I know it
does my constituents back home, that the goal is to find those things
that unite us, to focus on those and to move America forward.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it gives me great pleasure to
yield 1 minute to a leader from the great State of South Carolina (Mr.
Rice), a good friend of mine and a new Member of this body.
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker for the
minority was complaining of these small continuing resolutions because
they pick and choose which groups will get funded. That is our exact
problem with putting this Affordable Care Act into place--the
President's picking and choosing. We hear it's the law of the land;
but, actually, the President is deciding what parts of the law of the
land he wants to put in place. He says he is for the working man, and
he says he is for the middle class; but, in fact, he has exempted Big
Business, and he has exempted many of his friends in the unions and so
forth.
So if this law is so wonderful and if we are going to put it in place
and if, as you're saying, we want a whole CR that funds the whole
government, let's put the whole thing in place that funds every aspect
the law was designed to apply to. Let's put the whole law in effect. If
it's the law of the land, let's treat it like the law of the land with
no exemptions and no waivers. Let's put it into effect exactly like
it's written.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman from
Georgia has any more speakers. If not, I am prepared to close.
Mr. WOODALL. I very much thank my friend. I do not have any speakers
remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer
an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to vote on the
clean Senate continuing resolution so that we can send it to the
President for his signature today. I don't want that to be lost on
anybody. This will probably be the only chance in this House that you
will get to vote on what everyone has been asking for.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we found out already this morning in the
Rules Committee, admittedly by the chair, that they don't intend to
open the government back up. I brought this very same motion today to
the Rules Committee. It was defeated 9-4 on a party-line vote.
My hope today lies in all of the people from the other side, my good
friends, who have said that, if they had an opportunity, they'd open up
the government again. They would put people back to work and stop the
terrible pain that we are simply laying on our Federal workers. What we
have done is simply punish them. What we have done to medical science
cannot be turned off and on like a faucet, as well as what we have done
to our security and what we are doing to our intelligence--all of it,
Mr. Speaker. We cannot do this multiple choice of what we will save
today, and maybe we will do something else next week if we get a bad
headline.
This is terribly important, this opportunity. I want to give notice
to all of my friends on the other side to stand up for what you said.
Today, please put your voting cards where your mouths have been. Vote
because you know it is the right thing to do--to get this government
back to work.
[[Page H6131]]
I will remind everybody that the Senate has not been holding us up
here. The Senate sent a clean CR over early. We have simply ignored it,
and everything that we have sent back to them has had nothing to do
with the running of the government, but has had everything to do with
trying to kill health care.
Today, let's get ourselves back on track and get this magnificent
government working again. This country of which we are so proud is
looking pretty bedraggled right now because we don't know, with this
lurch from crisis to crisis, what is going to happen from one day to
the next. This is the day, Mr. Speaker. This is the time. This is the
opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question. At that point, we will have our opportunity to vote
on the clean CR that does nothing but continues the spending and allows
the government to reopen.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from New York for joining me on the
floor today.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, it is sad for the House that we have come to
define a CR as any sort of success whatsoever. Every Member of this
body knows that, when we talk about CRs, we are just talking about
varying degrees of failure, because there was a better way that the
House was obligated to do that we didn't do.
I want to say to my friends again that no one has said this bill
won't help. Absolutely, everyone knows this bill will help, but I want
to reach out my hand once again, Mr. Speaker, and say what my friend
from South Carolina said moments ago: take your pick. I will meet you
on your terms. Either let's take these things that we agree on in
government, and let's fund them--let's pick and choose those things we
agree on, and let's fund them--or let's fund it all, and let's stop the
picking and choosing in ObamaCare of what we like. If it's all good,
let's fund all of the government, and let's obey all of ObamaCare,
giving those waivers to individuals that Big Business got. If it's not
good, then let's focus on these things that we unanimously agree are
good.
There is a path forward, Mr. Speaker. We can find it together. I
believe the rule and the bill we have before us today begin to take us
down that path.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 370 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
Strike all and insert the following:
``Resolved, that immediately upon adoption of this
resolution the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other
purposes, with the House amendment to the Senate amendment
thereto, shall be taken from the Speaker's table and the
pending question shall be, without intervention of any point
of order, whether the House shall recede from its amendment
and concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment
shall be considered as read. The question shall be debatable
for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
question of receding from the House amendment and concurring
in the Senate amendment without intervening motion or demand
for division of the question.
Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.J. Res. 59 as specified in the first
section this resolution.''
THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 370, if
ordered; and approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 197, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 509]
YEAS--227
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
[[Page H6132]]
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--197
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--7
Herrera Beutler
Labrador
Lewis
McCarthy (NY)
Rush
Stivers
Stutzman
{time} 1518
Messrs. BARROW of Georgia and GARCIA changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 198, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 510]
YEAS--228
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--198
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--5
Graves (GA)
Herrera Beutler
Lewis
McCarthy (NY)
Rush
{time} 1527
Mr. McINTYRE changed his 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.
[[Page H6133]]
____________________