[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 136 (Friday, October 4, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6244-H6252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 75, SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL 
     NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN CONTINUING 
APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS 
 TO SUSPEND THE RULES; WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII 
  WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS; AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 371 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 371

       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) 40 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. 75) making continuing 
     appropriations for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program 
     for Women, Infants, and Children for fiscal year 2014, and 
     for other purposes.
       (b) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 76) making continuing 
     appropriations for the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.
       (c) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 77) making continuing 
     appropriations for the Food and Drug Administration for 
     fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.
       (d) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 78) making continuing 
     appropriations for national intelligence program operations 
     for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.
       (e) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 79) making continuing 
     appropriations for certain components of the Department of 
     Homeland Security for fiscal year 2014, and for other 
     purposes.
       (f) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 80) making continuing 
     appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau 
     of Indian Education, and the Indian Health Service for fiscal 
     year 2014, and for other purposes.
       (g) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 82) making continuing 
     appropriations for the National Weather Service for fiscal 
     year 2014, and for other purposes.
       (h) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 83) making continuing 
     appropriations for the Impact Aid program of the Department 
     of Education for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.
       (i) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 84) making continuing 
     appropriations for Head Start for fiscal year 2014, and for 
     other purposes.
       (j) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 85) making continuing 
     appropriations for the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     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. 3223) to 
     provide for the compensation of furloughed Federal employees. 
     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) 40 minutes of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4.  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 October 21, 2013.
       Sec. 5.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of October 20, 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 (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Oklahoma is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from Rochester, 
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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for the consideration of 10 different joint 
resolutions, all of which demonstrate House Republicans' continuing 
commitment to reopen necessary portions of our government.
  The rule is a closed rule, which provides for 40 minutes of debate 
between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations for each joint resolution. Additionally, the rule 
provides for 40 minutes of debate between the chairman and ranking 
member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for H.R. 
3223, the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act. The rule also 
provides for a motion to recommit for each bill or joint resolution.
  Additionally, the rule extends same-day authority for resolutions 
reported by the Rules Committee through the legislative day of October 
21, 2013, thus continuing to allow the House the flexibility to 
continue to address the government shutdown. Finally, the rule permits 
the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules until October 20.
  Here we are again, Mr. Speaker--day four of a government shutdown. 
Unfortunately for the American people, not much has changed. The Senate 
is still recalcitrant, unwilling to consider legislation that would 
reopen parts of the government. I do want to add an exception, though, 
and thank our friends in the upper Chamber for actually agreeing with 
us to exempt our military from these cuts, both civilian and uniform. 
The Senate, however, is still unwilling to go to conference to discuss 
the very serious fiscal issues facing this country. The Senate is also 
unwilling to consider any of the five pieces of legislation the House 
passed in the last 2 days, which will reopen parts of our government. 
Even so, House Republicans continue to bring legislation to the floor 
to meet the needs of American citizens.
  Today's rule will allow for the consideration of resolutions that 
reopen the Bureau of Indian Education, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
the Indian Health Service, the WIC program, the National Weather 
Center, FEMA, our intelligence agencies, Impact Aid, Head Start--and 
the list goes on and on.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this rule makes clear our commitment to the 
800,000 Federal workers currently furloughed that they will, indeed, be 
paid. It is not their fault that Washington is dysfunctional in that 
Congress can't agree on the size and scope of government. Yet they are 
caught in the crossfire, wondering if they will be able to afford their 
mortgages and pay their utility bills. Mr. Speaker, that simply isn't 
fair. H.R. 3223, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would codify what we 
have done in every previous government shutdown: pay our Federal 
employees from the date on which the government shut down.
  I particularly want to compliment in a bipartisan fashion our friends 
Mr. Moran and Mr. Wolf, who worked together on this measure, who 
brought it forward and gathered many dozens of cosponsors from both 
sides of the aisle. Quite frankly, I think their example of 
bipartisanship and working together is something that we could all 
learn from.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans alike agree that that's the 
responsible thing to do. House Republicans are working to deal with the 
real-world problems of our constituents. Republicans are working to 
reopen the government. However, we lack a willing partner in the Senate 
and in the President. Every time we have attempted to negotiate with 
them, they have told us to accept their plan. They have even rebuffed 
our attempts to go to conference. Therefore, House Republicans have 
been left with little choice except that of passing a number of smaller 
bills to see if the Senate would be willing to accept those. Again, I 
remark on one occasion, with respect to the military, that they

[[Page H6245]]

did, indeed, accept one, so I would urge them to do that with the 
others.
  I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me 
the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Unless the silent Members of the majority speak up, today's debate is 
a fait accompli.
  For the last 2 days, Members of the majority have said publicly that 
they wish this government shutdown would end. In fact, a coalition of 
more than 218 Democrats and Republicans has publicly declared that it 
is ready to vote on the clean Senate CR. This 218 would be the 
majority, and we would pass it; and that's why the powerful minority, 
who has taken the government hostage, is doing all it can again today 
to prevent the Senate CR from coming to the House floor. It doesn't 
make any sense. Not only doesn't it make any sense; but, actually, were 
we to do that, we wouldn't have to be here today, trying to do these 
piecemeal pieces.
  Last night, the Rules Committee proposed a rule for these 11 
piecemeal funding bills before us today. They didn't go through a 
single meeting of a committee. At least, in the committee process, the 
subcommittees and committees would have given both Republicans and 
Democrats an opportunity to weigh in on these measures. Remember that 
half the population of the United States is represented by Democrats 
and that, in the last election, Democrat candidates for Congress 
achieved a million more votes than our Republican friends, but we are 
shut out of the process. Indeed, these bills were written yesterday 
afternoon and were brought straight to the Rules Committee, as so many 
are lately, in order to be rushed to the floor.
  During our hearing, a colleague promised that the reckless approach 
would continue, even suggesting that we could see 150 more of these 
piecemeal bills before the majority agrees to end the government 
shutdown. That should take us to, maybe, October of next year. Yet, 
while they're willing to take 150 votes on bills the President would 
veto--and everybody knows the President would veto them--and the Senate 
would reject, they haven't allowed a single vote on the cure to the 
problem: bring up the CR, and put the government back to work.
  Fortunately for the American people, no minority--no matter how 
powerful--can stop the will of the House if we exercise it. Unlike the 
Senate, a majority in the House can only be held back for so long. 
Thanks to the democratic spirit baked into our Chamber's rules, the 
majority will always succeed. For the more than 218 Members--a majority 
who has expressed a desire to vote on the clean CR--our most powerful 
tool is voting down the previous question and bringing the clean Senate 
CR to the floor to vote on.
  Now, earlier this week, my Democrat colleagues and I urged the 
Chamber to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we could bring 
the Senate bill to the floor. Not a single Republican joined our cause. 
Today, we are going to give you another chance. Following the debate on 
the rule, we will have a chance to vote down the previous question. 
While that may simply be legislative language to most people, what that 
will do is give us an opportunity--those of us who very strongly 
believe this government should work--to bring the CR, bring the 
shutdown to a close and put everybody back to work. I want to see by 
the end of this day that we can accomplish that, because words are no 
longer enough. Those Members of the majority who claim that they want 
to end the government shutdown get the opportunity today to stand up 
and vote. As I said the other day when we had the same opportunity, I 
would like them to put their voting cards where their mouths are.

  Over the next hour, I encourage every Member of this Chamber to 
reflect on the damage that has already been wrought on our Nation 
because of the shutdown and on the damage that will ensue if we wait 
another day. The shutdown is costing the Nation $300 million a day, and 
more than 800,000 workers are furloughed without pay. Today, we are 
going to vote--and, I think, almost unanimously--to pay them when the 
shutdown ends. A logical person would say, Why don't you bring them 
back to work? If they're going to be paid anyway, let them work. There 
is no answer for that. There must be some reason here that is available 
to only a few people as to why the majority wants to keep the 
government shut down.
  We have to also end this because our State Department and 
intelligence employees need to go back on the job. A hurricane is 
bearing down right now on the State of Louisiana while 80 percent of 
the FEMA workers are furloughed. NASA had to turn off the Mars Rover, 
which was giving us so much information about the universe--stopping 
all the space exploration in its tracks.
  I think one of the best things I've read to describe what we are 
doing in this House was said by a Republican. Because there is no plan 
here--there is no end game here--he is saying that what they are doing 
is laying the track ahead of the speeding train as it bears down on 
them.
  The majority started the shutdown because they were dead set on 
repealing the Affordable Care Act; and I think, by doing this 
piecemeal, they think they can still do that. Throughout the process, 
they have issued dire predictions about the health care law and have 
warned that the law would hurt American workers. It is absolutely 
turning out not to be true.
  In the last week, two of our Nation's biggest companies have 
responded to the Affordable Care Act by giving tens of thousands of 
their part-time employees full-time jobs. Guess who they are? One is 
the largest employer in the United States--Walmart. They are raising 
35,000 of their part-time employees to become full-time employees in 
order to make them eligible for health insurance. Walt Disney announced 
that 427 employees at Disney World who have been hired as full-time 
employees will be given access to the health insurance plan. We also 
hear all the time--and I've really got to research this--that Delta Air 
Lines has said, they tell me, that the affordable care plan would cost 
them $100 million a year. I surely would like to know how that's 
possible unless they plan to hire 70 million new employees, which would 
certainly be good for employment, but I see no earthly reason for them 
to do that. We need to know whether that's true or not since all of the 
rest of the dire predictions have turned out not to be.
  The Affordable Care Act is working; but because of the majority, the 
government is not, and it's time for the majority to give up this 
losing game. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule 
and on the underlying legislation; and, so importantly, I urge a ``no'' 
vote on the previous question. Then, Mr. Speaker, we can bring the 
clean Senate CR to the House floor, as we should have done weeks ago, 
and end this government shutdown today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of points that my good friend 
raises; but before I do, I want to agree with her in that I think we 
all think the government ought to be open. I, actually, don't think 
there is much division about that, and folks have actually tried to do 
that. On our side of the aisle, every single piece of legislation we've 
brought to the floor during this period has either kept the government 
open in whole or in part, and I suspect we will continue to try and do 
that. So it's not the aim of either side here to shut down the 
government.
  In terms of the Affordable Health Care Act, I certainly don't support 
it--I voted against it, and voted multiple times to repeal it and delay 
it--but I'll agree with my good friend on that, too, in the sense that 
there are times when we have actually worked together on both sides of 
the aisle to change it. My friends like to quite often mention there 
have been 41 or 42 efforts to repeal, delay, defund the bill; but they 
usually forget to add--and, quite frankly, some people on our side of 
the aisle forget to add--that seven of those have actually succeeded, 
that is, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President agreed with 
them.
  The proposals that we have on the table now in terms of the 
Affordable Health Care Act are immanently sensible and overwhelmingly 
popular. To put it quite simply, we just don't think that political 
appointees and elected officials ought to be treated differently

[[Page H6246]]

than other Americans. Now, we can get into a big fight about health 
care; but the reality is, right now, under the law, Members of Congress 
and their staffs can bring subsidies with them onto the exchange. No 
other American can do that. We can do this either way as far as I'm 
concerned. I could leave them back as Federal employees, and they could 
be treated like every other Federal employee--that's the acceptable 
solution to me at least--or we could allow other Americans to bring 
subsidies onto the exchange just like Members of Congress; but the 
underlying principle is that we ought to treat them all the same. 
Washington political appointees shouldn't be treated differently than 
the average American.
  The second thing is, I think, very simple. We're not talking about 
delaying all of ObamaCare; but if we are going to allow big businesses 
to wait a year before they implement what they're required to do--if we 
are going to allow 1,100 organizations and many labor unions to do it--
why shouldn't we allow the average American, at his choice, to delay it 
as well?

                              {time}  1300

  They don't want to delay. They can go onto the exchanges. The 
subsidies are still there. The tax programs are still there. Why 
shouldn't the average American have the same privilege that we've 
bestowed on Big Business, Big Labor, and countless organizations? 
That's what we're talking about.
  To my friend's point here--and I suspect this is true of the debt 
ceiling a little bit further down the road--the Democratic approach is 
very simple: do everything I want, and then I'm willing to negotiate. 
We would like to sit down and talk now and see if we could find some 
common ground. We've got negotiators, conferees--the technical title--
available to sit down and find common ground. We're not asking for 
something that is unreasonable, in my view. We're certainly not 
proposing something that is outside the scope of the type of things 
we've been able to agree on before.
  The President, I want to add, is taking the same approach that the 
Senate has taken with regard to the continuing resolution with the debt 
ceiling. He has just simply said we have to raise it unilaterally. 
That's not a particularly popular vote, probably on either side of the 
aisle. It's certainly not on my side of the aisle.
  I'm willing to work with the President on the debt ceiling. I did it 
in 2011. And I want to note for the record, that is something he never 
did when he was a Member of the United States Senate. He didn't vote to 
raise the debt ceiling when he had the opportunity to do it. Instead, 
he engaged in a lecture about debt. It probably was a lecture that was 
needed. Regardless, he did not do for George Bush what he's asking us 
to do for him.
  I'm willing to do that. I'm willing to work with him on the debt 
ceiling. If you voted for the Ryan budget, you envisioned the debt 
ceiling as being something that has to be raised while you deal with 
the underlying deficit. I do want to do something or be in a 
negotiation with the President about what to do on that deficit. I 
don't think that's an unreasonable position.
  I think the real central issue in this is not the Affordable Care 
Act, not the debt ceiling, and, frankly, not even the government 
shutdown, as serious as that is. The real issue is whether my friends 
and the President of the United States will simply come to the table to 
negotiate. Will they put a counterproposal out there, or is it simply 
going to be: We insist in getting our way, in full, all the time? I 
don't think that's an acceptable way to arrive at common ground, and I 
don't think it's likely to succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm so pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), our incredible member of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the distinguished ranking member for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are on day 4 of the Republican shutdown of the 
people's government.
  The other day after meeting with the President at the White House, 
Speaker Boehner said:

       At some point, we've got to allow the process that our 
     Founders gave us to work out.

  Mr. Speaker, I've studied American history, too, and what the 
Republican leadership is doing with this rule is a million miles away 
from what the Founders had in mind.
  I'm comforted that Speaker Boehner has said privately that he wants 
to extend the debt ceiling. He also said he didn't want to shut down 
the government, yet here we are. I don't know what Senator Cruz is 
saying privately, which is important, because he's apparently calling 
all the shots around here.
  The rule before us today extends martial law rule until October 21. 
They have decided that they have the right to throw the rules and 
traditions of this House into the trash can for the next 2\1/2\ weeks. 
That's 4 days after we default on our obligations. That should make all 
of us very nervous.
  The rule also makes in order 11 separate bills--many of which were 
never considered in committee or on the House floor--under a closed 
process with no amendments. I've been on and around the Rules Committee 
for quite a few years, Mr. Speaker, but I have never seen a rule like 
this.
  I find it astounding that the Republicans have suddenly found 
religion on the need to go to conference on the budget, because for 
months and months and months and months they have refused to appoint 
budget negotiators. Suddenly, as the American people rise up in outrage 
over their tactics and their poll numbers fall off a cliff, my 
Republican friends all of the sudden now want to negotiate.
  There's a very easy way to get past this: bring up the short-term 
clean continuing resolution that has already passed the Senate--at 
Republican sequester numbers, no less--and we will pass it with a 
bipartisan vote and end this unnecessary, harmful Republican shutdown. 
It is simple.
  Mr. Speaker, not only is this process awful, so are many of the bills 
made in order under this rule. I want to talk about one in particular, 
the one that provides funding for WIC, the Women, Infants, and Children 
Nutrition Program. After months of trying to cut $40 billion from the 
SNAP program, after months of demonizing poor people, after months of 
trying to slash food assistance programs across the board, Republicans 
would like us all to believe that they care about hunger in America all 
of the sudden.
  Give me a break. Give me a break, Mr. Speaker. I say to my Republican 
friends: Where have you been? Where have you been on this issue?
  Because of the sequester, we've already seen WIC clinics close and 
participation in the program fall. That means that fewer and fewer low-
income women and children are getting help, the nutritious food that 
they need. This bill does not fix that.
  The National WIC Association urges the House to oppose H.J. Res. 75, 
calling it ``a cynical ploy to use low-income, nutritionally at-risk 
mothers and young children as political pawns for political ends.'' 
They are right, Mr. Speaker, this is a cynical ploy.
  Enough is enough. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, pass the 
clean CR, and let the American people get on with their lives.
  I would say to the Speaker of the House that all you need to do is 
schedule a vote. You don't even have to vote for it. If you schedule 
it, it will pass in a bipartisan manner and we can end this shutdown 
once and for all.
  Please, Mr. Speaker, practice a little democracy in the people's 
House. Please, Mr. Speaker, give us a vote.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just a quick point. My friend is always quite eloquent, and I know, 
frankly, very passionate and very well-meaning and very expert when he 
talks about nutrition programs, where he spent a great deal of time.
  For the record, it's worth noting that we have increased nutrition 
programs broadly by 400 percent since George Bush became President. We 
doubled them, roughly, when Bush was President. Doubled them again 
since President Obama has been in office. What the Republican program 
is talking about is a 5 percent cut after a 400 percent increase based 
on reforms. I think it's maybe not quite so dire.

  Again, I recognize my friend's good work in this area and hope that 
we have an opportunity to get to conference, have that discussion. I 
suspect the bill, if it comes back, may be closer to his liking than 
the bill that went out.

[[Page H6247]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My objection with the Republican approach to the SNAP program is that 
3.8 million people will lose their benefits, 170,000 veterans would 
lose their benefits, and we have a problem with hunger in America. We 
have close to 50 million people who are hungry, and 17 million are 
kids. We should all be ashamed of that. We should be coming together to 
solve the problem and not making it worse. That's where my frustration 
comes from.
  Mr. COLE. Reclaiming my time, the rolls have been going up in a 
period we're supposed to be recovering. I think we have some genuine 
problems in this program in terms of reform. Again, that's the initial 
proposal. It's not out of bounds considering a 400 percent increase to 
have a 5 percent cutback. We'll wait and see what comes out of the 
conference committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the ranking member of the Rules Committee for 
yielding, and I thank Ms. Slaughter for the extraordinary leadership 
she has shown and the work she has been doing.
  Mr. Speaker, the people want their government open. A government of 
the people and for the people and by the people ought to be open. They 
want their dedicated Federal employees, who have been unfairly 
furloughed, to go back to work. They want to end the shutdown that is 
having negative consequences for our economy and for our national 
security and for the confidence of Americans that their government can 
work.
  The only way to do so is by passing a clean, get-the-government-open 
funding bill to keep the government open while we discuss, negotiate, 
put forward our positions, a longer term agreement on the budget.
  The Senate has acted, and acted responsibly, by passing a bill that 
will keep the government operating. They passed that bill with a number 
that was suggested by the Republican Party, Mr. Speaker. Now we have 
the opportunity to do the same thing right now and end this shutdown. 
Get the people's government back to work.
  There are a growing number of Republicans who say they would vote for 
a bill which is so-called ``clean,'' not with any of the poison pills 
that have been on it time after time after time. I tell them that this 
is your opportunity to back up your words with actions. Don't just say, 
``Let's end the shutdown.'' Vote with us in just a few minutes to end 
the shutdown.
  On Wednesday, Majority Leader Cantor said this:

       We're trying to get this government open as quickly as 
     possible.

  ``As quickly as possible'' is in about 5, 10, 15, or 20 minutes. 
That's ``as quickly as possible.'' I don't know if it's as quickly as 
probable, because I'm not sure that the majority leader means those 
words or that his party means those words, but we're going to have an 
opportunity to vote on it.
  I say to my friend from Virginia, here is our chance to do so. To the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), Mr. Cole's colleague, who said 
about the shutdown that he and his Republican colleagues have imposed: 
I would like to end it this afternoon; I say we can do it--he's right. 
In just a few minutes, Mr. Lankford is going to have the opportunity to 
vote that way. It's either empty rhetoric, or he means what he says.
  Let's do it. Let's open government. Let's get the people's public 
servants back to work for them. Right here, right now, we can end this 
shutdown today, this afternoon, in just a few minutes.
  We don't differ. As I understand it, everybody on both sides of the 
aisle says they don't want to shut down government. Mr. Cole says that. 
Ms. Slaughter says that. I say that. We have the power, in a few 
minutes, to put people back to work for all of our constituents.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion--the previous 
question, we call it, jargon for saying ``let's move on.'' If we vote 
``no'' on the previous question, we can put a bill on the floor which 
will put the government back to work this afternoon. Mr. Cole knows we 
can do that. I don't know that Mr. Cole will vote to do that. I think 
Ms. Slaughter will vote to do that. I will vote to do that. Mr. Andrews 
will vote to do that. Others will vote to do that. If they do, if they 
match their actions with their talk, then we can open this government 
in just a matter of minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend and fellow member of the Rules 
Committee.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from the Rules Committee 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my friend, the 
minority whip, just said. He said, There are things that we agree on, 
why can't we get those things done? I would say that every single 
Member that the majority whip pointed out that said, I know they're 
going to vote for that, I know they're going to vote for that, I know 
they're going to vote for that--we have an opportunity today to vote to 
reopen parts of the Department of Homeland Security. I know we agree on 
that. Let's do that. We have the opportunity under this rule to go 
ahead and fund the WIC program. I know we agree on that. Let's do that.
  I didn't come to that conclusion on my own, Mr. Speaker. I sit in the 
Rules Committee, and I listen to my colleagues. This happens to be a 
statement from the minority whip in a Rules Committee hearing. He said 
this: ``The American people are obviously deeply distressed. They are 
distressed that when they see agreement, that that agreement is not 
made into law. We don't have an agreement on everything, but we do have 
an agreement. Let's move forward on that which we agree.''
  I agree. Every single provision that we are bringing to the floor 
today, I say, Mr. Speaker, is something on which we agree.
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman used my name. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield if I have time remaining. The 
gentleman knows I would be happy to yield, and I absolutely will.
  Let us move forward on that with which we agree. There is not one 
provision in this rule on which we disagree. And Mr. Speaker, you will 
not hear anyone on this floor say otherwise.
  But it's not just the minority whip, who I would very much like to 
yield to if I have time remaining; it's the minority leader. The same 
Rules Committee hearing: ``Here is a place where we are all in 
agreement. Whatever else we have, we can continue that conversation 
later.''
  ``We can continue that conversation later.'' Let's do what we all 
agree on.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman now yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I agree with my friend, the minority whip. I agree with 
the minority leader.
  As I have said to my friend very respectfully, if I have time 
remaining at the end, I would be happy to yield. But at the moment, I 
do not. Very respectfully to my friend.
  And it's not just my friend, the minority whip. It's not just the 
minority leader. It's President Barack Obama: ``I want the American 
people to urge Congress soon to begin the work we have by doing what we 
all agree on. We already all agree on making sure middle class taxes 
don't go up. So let's get that done.''
  We did. Now some Republicans voted ``no,'' and some Democrats voted 
``no.'' But the Chamber came together, and we got that done. We're in 
the same place today, Mr. Speaker.
  If one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle disagrees with 
any one of these provisions, believes any one of these provisions is 
not worthy of their vote, if they do not affirmatively want to see 
these programs reopen, I would like to hear that from my friends. But 
Mr. Speaker, they do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend for yielding.

[[Page H6248]]

  I now yield to my friend from Maryland, the minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Does the gentleman believe that we should shut down the government?
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I will say to my friend, I spent the 
entire month of August at every town hall meeting I could find, telling 
folks that government shutdowns were not the right plan for this 
Nation.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for continuing to yield.
  Then we agree not only on the small slices of which the gentleman has 
spoken and would draw on the floor today but on the whole. And we could 
put every employee back to work for the American people today because, 
as you say, we agree.
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the 
gentleman that, no, we do not agree because the gentleman wants to 
continue to support those programs that are putting workers in my 
district out of work. They want to continue to support those programs 
that are taking health insurance away from families in my district. 
They want to continue to support those programs that we know are 
broken.
  Folks, my constituency wants to do away with preexisting conditions. 
My constituency wants to ensure that every child has access to health 
coverage. But my constituency does not understand why we had to re-
regulate the entire health care industry, destroying the 40-hour 
workweek, as my union friends have said, destroying quality health care 
plans that folks in my district have had but have now lost, breaking 
the promise the President made that if you like your health insurance, 
you can keep it. There's not a man or woman in this room that believes 
that promise has been kept. We were duped, Mr. Speaker, by that 
promise.
  Today, however, we have straightforward, narrow bills. Not 2,400 
pages of legislation, Mr. Speaker, but one idea at a time. Stand up, 
Mr. Speaker. Who doesn't believe that the Department of Homeland 
Security, focused on our Nation's security, should be funded? Stand up, 
and vote ``no.'' But you believe that it should be, and you're going to 
vote ``no'' anyway.
  Who doesn't believe that the Impact Aid Program from the Department 
of Education which helps children not just in my district but in every 
district, Mr. Speaker, who doesn't believe that ought to be funded? The 
truth is, everyone believes that ought to be funded. And yet they are 
going to stand up today and vote ``no'' anyway. They are encouraged to 
vote ``no'' by leadership. It's disappointing to me, Mr. Speaker.
  I'm disappointed we can't agree on everything, but I recognize that 
we can't. I know that we agree on most things. Let's do those things on 
which we agree. Don't take my word for it. Take President Obama's word 
for it. Let's begin the work we have by doing what we all agree on. 
Take Nancy Pelosi's word for it--let's do what we all agree on. We can 
continue the rest of that conversation later. Let's do what my good 
friend, the minority whip, who just left the floor, said: We don't have 
an agreement on everything, but we do have an agreement. Let's move 
forward on that with which we agree. I could not agree more, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I urge a strong ``yes'' vote for this rule and a strong ``yes'' vote 
for every single underlying provision.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  My colleagues have confused the fact that they have gone around 
saying how, indeed, throughout August and all the rest of this time, 
that they don't want to shut down the House, in some hope, I guess, 
that nobody would understand that when they shut down the House, that 
they had actually done it.
  Now what my colleague is talking about from the Democrat side, what 
they are saying, let's do what we agree with, they are taking their 
word for it that you didn't want to shut down the House. So let's not 
do it. You cannot superimpose that notion onto the idea of setting up 
this government by dribs and drabs. None of us are for that. The Senate 
won't do it. You know this is an exercise in futility. But pretty soon, 
the previous question is coming up. You are going to have a chance to 
do what you said you didn't want to do, shut down the House. But I 
understand from what you have said that because of health care, because 
of health care and what you think it has done to people in your 
district, you are holding this country hostage.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I don't have the time. My time has been given out.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair tell me how much time the 
gentlewoman from New York has remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 13 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the 
great State of Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, we are here on a Friday. The government has 
partially been shut down for some 4 days now.
  Republicans have tried to be reasonable. Many of us did not like 
ObamaCare. Some folks, like myself--my family didn't have health care 
at certain times. And I thought we had a responsibility to help people 
who had preexisting conditions, help some of our young people. And we 
disagreed with the other side. They passed it. They said you'd know 
what was in the bill after we passed it. After we passed it, and it 
became the law, we saw what was in it. The President, some 17 times 
now--many times in contravention of the law that was passed--changed 
the law.
  Now when we came a few days ago, October 1, there wasn't money to run 
the government, but there was money to run ObamaCare. Still, many 
people were left in the lurch after many exceptions were made for 
special interest folks, even business. And I admit to being pro-
business. They gave them a waiver.
  We said that Members of Congress and also the White House staff and 
others should be under ObamaCare, and we said that the individual 
should also have a break here.
  This is a system that some Democrats said was a train wreck. We 
didn't say that. But we should have the opportunity to make some 
changes. And we offered three opportunities to make changes--some of 
them minor--that we thought were fair.
  But when you go out golfing the Saturday before the government is 
about to run out of money, when you don't show up for work on Sunday, 
and you come to work on Monday, as the United States Senate did, you 
can't negotiate. When you send people to the White House and sit there 
and say, we won't negotiate----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. I yield my friend from Florida an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. MICA. But our leaders, in good faith, went to the White House.
  As a staffer, I used to get calls. I was a staffer for Senator 
Hawkins, and Ronald Reagan would ask me to help work with my boss and 
others to get things done.
  I voted on this floor to impeach Bill Clinton. And Bill Clinton came 
back and worked with us. We balanced the budget.
  Remember, after we had the last shutdown, '95, within 2 years, we 
balanced the budget. We reformed welfare. We balanced the budget. 
Actually, the debate here on September 11, just before September 11, 
was what to do with the surplus. So some good can come out of this, 
good people working together.
  But when they won't negotiate, when they call you to the White House 
and they won't talk, when they go to Maryland, as they did, or wherever 
it was in the region here, and then tell folks that we're holding a gun 
to their heads, that's wrong.
  Let's negotiate. Let's get this done for the American people.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am feeling quite badly. I didn't know 
how much time I had remaining.
  I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica), if he would like.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis) 
a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentlewoman from New York 
for yielding.

[[Page H6249]]

  I oppose this rule, and I oppose the bill. I don't oppose it because 
my district does not need the assistance. I represent one of the most 
impoverished and disadvantaged districts in America. We have great 
need. Fortunately, many of my constituents know the difference between 
genuinely trying to help them or, as the guys in the barber shop might 
say, ``gaming them.'' Or they may say, ``Fool me once, shame on you; 
fool me twice, shame on me.'' Or they could say that this piecemeal 
approach is not going to cut it.
  Poverty in my State of Illinois is at nearly 15 percent. And in my 
district, child poverty is 40 percent. Women, 28 percent; African 
Americans, 38 percent. Twenty-three percent of Asian Americans and 24 
percent of Latinos in my district live in poverty. Overall, 196,478 
people in my district live in poverty.
  So you can see we need the assistance. But we also need affordable 
health care. We need LIHEAP. We need mortgage assistance. We need to 
get homeless people off the street during Chicago's cold winters. 
Therefore, I cannot support this piecemeal approach. What we need is a 
clean CR so that our employees can return to work and our people can 
receive the services and benefits that they so greatly need and rightly 
deserve. We need a clean CR.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from 
Kentucky, the Honorable Hal Rogers, the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Might I engage in a colloquy with the gentleman?
  Mr. COLE. Certainly.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. What is the normal time-honored procedure in 
the Congress when the two bodies disagree?
  Mr. COLE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, we schedule a conference, we go to 
conference, and we try to negotiate our differences.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That's the time-honored tradition. That's the 
way the place works. It's the way it should operate. That's regular 
order.
  Now the Senate has passed the bill. The House has passed a bill, 
which disagree with each other. The House, two or three nights ago now, 
passed their motion to go to conference, and it passed the House. The 
Speaker of the House then appointed conferees from the House side and 
sent that to the Senate, waiting for the Senate to appoint conferees so 
that we can meet together, work out our differences, and bring that 
agreement back to each body, the House and the Senate.

                              {time}  1330

  Why aren't we proceeding on regular order in this case?
  Do you have an answer?
  Mr. COLE. If the gentleman will yield, no, Mr. Chairman, I do not. I 
would just highly recommend to my friends we do, since it seems to be a 
good way to resolve our differences.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, that's the way we've done 
it for 200 years or so, and that is, when we disagree with the other 
body, we each appoint our conferees. The conferees go off and haggle 
and amend and argue and debate until there's some agreement that can be 
brought back to each Chamber, which then can reject or accept that 
conference report.
  The House has acted. We're waiting on the Senate to appoint their 
conferees so that we can go off and work, 24 hours a day, if necessary, 
to come to an agreement, which we can do.
  And I would urge the other body to honor the age-old tradition in the 
Congress. When you disagree with the other body, you appoint conferees 
to work out the differences, bring it back to each body, and I would 
hope that the Senate would do that.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that regular order has 
not been the order of business in this House for a long time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), ranking member of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Agriculture.
  Mr. FARR. Thank you, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Appropriations Committee. This 
process is about appropriations. That's how we keep government open.
  Unfortunately, we've never been able to get any of the appropriation 
bills to the floor because the Republicans won't appoint conferees to 
the joint committees, so we're doing a continuing resolution.
  The continuing resolution is not new in this Congress. It's been done 
every year. The shocking thing is it's never been used as a weapon of 
destruction until now. We were here last year, same argument.
  The health care bill is not the issue here. That's been law in this 
country for 3\1/2\ years. So for 3\1/2\ years, we've been appropriating 
money to keep government open.
  What's the difference now?
  The difference now is a new attitude, new breed, very mean, very 
conservative, very anti-government; and they're willing to bring their 
internal kind of power within their caucus to shut down the whole 
country, if not the whole world. It's totally irresponsible.
  They argue, well, we can do this if we could change the health care. 
If the health care bill needs changing, bring it up in a bill. That's 
how we change things.
  So I'm opposing this rule because this rule says, okay, let's bring 
up 10 parts of government. Let's bring up 10 parts. Let's just have 
multiple choice. Let's have a triage.
  Which parts of government do you like?
  I'd like to compliment my colleague, Mr. Cole, because in it we can't 
be against all health care because we keep open, in one of these bills, 
H.J. Res. 80, the Indian Health Services, so obviously we're going to 
provide health services for some low-income people; but we're against 
any other system that might provide assistance for other kinds of low-
income people.
  So this is government by multiple choice. It's not working. That's 
why we oppose it. Let's bring the whole family, the whole Nation 
together.
  Reject this rule. Defeat the previous question and defeat the rule, 
and get on with a CR that is in this House and can be voted on right 
now.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I believe I've only got one more speaker 
in the room, so I wanted to inform my colleague that, after Mr. 
Andrews, I may be prepared to close.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, there's been an avalanche of talk from both sides, an 
avalanche of opinion. That's democracy.
  I think there is one indisputable fact, and that is the one way to 
end the government shutdown today is for the House to pass the Senate 
bill and send it to the President. That would end the shutdown 
immediately.
  Now, it's my opinion that a majority of Members of the House would 
vote in favor of that proposal if it reaches the floor. I think that's 
what would happen.
  But it's my conviction, and I think it should be our shared 
conviction, that we ought to take a vote on it. We ought to let all 433 
Members that are present here cast a vote on whether they want the 
Senate bill to pass or not; and if our side wins, fine. If our side 
loses, that's fine too. That's democracy.
  After this avalanche of talk, there is going to be a chance, in a few 
minutes, for people to actually vote on this question; and this is not 
the technical, procedural language, but it's the reality language.
  What this vote's really going to ask is this: Do you want the 
government shutdown to continue or not?
  If you vote ``no'' that you don't want the government shutdown to 
continue, the Senate bill will come to the House floor this afternoon, 
and we'll take that vote.
  If you vote ``yes,'' then the Senate bill will not come to the House 
floor, and we'll continue on this everlasting process of burdening the 
American people, talking the issue to death, and not getting anything 
done.
  I think we owe it to the American people to all stand up and raise 
our hands, either say ``yes'' or ``no'' on the Senate bill. If your 
answer is ``no,'' your answer is ``no.'' Mine would be ``yes.''

[[Page H6250]]

  But the way to make that happen is to cast this vote in a few 
minutes. The question on this vote is, Do you want the government 
shutdown to continue or not?

  If your vote is ``no,'' then we vote on the Senate bill. If your vote 
is ``yes,'' then we don't, and the shutdown continues.
  The American people deserve this vote.
  Mr. Speaker, give us this vote.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I have some good news I want to announce here 
just shortly.
  But I want to note, for the record, my friends quite often make the 
point that they don't like a piecemeal approach. The reality is, if you 
look at actions, sometimes they do. They like it until they don't.
  I would point out we had, of course, H.R. 3210 here, which funded the 
military, by our good friend from Colorado (Mr. Coffman). I think, in a 
very bipartisan way, we voted overwhelmingly on both sides to fund the 
military and most of the contracting and civilian employees.
  There is a little disagreement with the administration about that 
right now, but that's half the discretionary budget taken care of in a 
``piecemeal approach.''
  Today the administration just announced, and I commend them for doing 
it, and I commend my friend because she announced she was going to be 
supportive of this too, and I think we all are. It was very evident in 
the Rules Committee, H.R. 3223, the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay 
Fairness Act.
  The administration's just announced that they're going to support 
that legislation. The President looks forward to signing it, and that's 
a bipartisan agreement between both sides and, frankly, a product of 
the work of our mutual good friends, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who found common 
ground and, in a piecemeal approach, moved us closer to a solution.
  So I think that's maybe not the greatest news in the world, but on a 
day where there's not as much good as we would all like, some good 
news. And I would hope my friends would look at the individual pieces 
of legislation that are coming, where we mostly agree, and accept 
those.
  We don't have to agree on everything, as the point's been made by 
several, to agree on some things. Those are areas that we do agree. And 
if we can fund our military in this fashion, and if we can make sure 
that our Federal employees are not going to lose any pay, 
retroactively, certainly, one step at a time, we can walk in the right 
direction and turn back on critical parts of our government. I hope 
that's what we're moving toward, Mr. Speaker.
  So my friend knows, I'm quite prepared to close whenever she wishes 
to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am absolutely going to vote to retroactively fund the Federal 
employees because that's the best I can do, on that one issue. It is a 
matter of basic fairness, but it is not good enough.
  The fact is that the Federal employees will not get paid their 
retroactive money until after all this charade is over. We have no idea 
when that's going to be.
  Let me reiterate again what all my colleagues have said: we can do it 
right now, put them back to work and let them get their paycheck.
  I'm embarrassed every time I pass the Capitol Police at what's 
happening to them. It bothers me terribly to hear my friends at the 
State Department say that they're working on fumes.
  We cannot run the Government of the United States, which is the 
beacon of democracy, has been the pattern for countries all over the 
world, by saying we're going to fund this piece over there and that 
piece over there, and we don't care what happens to the rest of it. 
That's not what we are here for.
  Certainly, we will fund that one piece; but I can tell you right now, 
the Democrats are not going to do any of the rest of it because the 
Senate is not going to take it up and the President is not going to 
sign it.
  We are simply wasting time, and we're taking up valuable time, and we 
are worrying the country half to death.
  For heaven's sake, when we do this previous question, let us do the 
right thing. Vote ``no'' and get all these folks back to work.
  Does it literally make sense to anybody who either manages a 
household or their own business that we would say to everybody, go home 
and rest around here or there; we'll pay you later when we decide you 
can come back, for not being here. That makes absolutely no sense.
  Let them go back to work. We're going to pay them. Pay them now for 
the work they're doing. Pay concurrently with work.
  Doesn't that make more sense?
  Does it really make any sense at all that we're saying to them, we 
have no idea what the end game is here. You may be sitting around for a 
very long time, while the country pays $300 million a day of the cost 
of the shutdown.
  For heaven's sake, I would say once again that we have to do this 
previous question today. We have to stop this nonsense. It is 
humiliating us. We cannot go on with this another week.
  We're only here today to try to make it look like we're doing 
something because the government's shut down, and we know it. Those 
bills that we're voting on today had no committee action, nothing. The 
Senate has made perfectly clear they're not going to take them up. They 
will not become law, as every school child knows.
  Now, those who vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question will be 
giving this Chamber what the leadership of the majority has not, and 
that will be the real chance to vote this down so that we can put the 
CR on the calendar and stop the shutdown now, today.
  It doesn't have to go back to the Senate. The President's waiting for 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, I beg my 
colleagues, I do implore my colleagues, for goodness sakes, come to the 
floor, defeat the previous question. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank my good friend from New York. She's always a 
terrific, frankly, counterpoint and debater, and we agree on some 
things. We both agree that the government shutdown's not a good thing.
  Frankly, there's a strong bipartisan agreement. It's not something 
that either side wished to achieve, and it's something we ought to be 
working together, step by step, to try and undo; and, frankly, we've 
made a little bit of progress.
  Again, the idea that it never works to work piecemeal, it certainly 
did with respect to the United States military, civilian defense force, 
and contractors. That's exactly what we did.
  We passed something out of here; and the Senate, which said it wasn't 
going to agree to anything, magically did.
  Now we're going to, hopefully, eventually pass H.R. 3223 out of here 
to guarantee back pay. I think most people on both sides of the aisle 
will support that. The President's indicated he'll sign it, which 
suggests to me that the Senate will probably take it up and move on it. 
So, voila.
  Once again, just working through the process, we've found something 
that we can agree on. The differences here should not be so great that 
they can't be bridged.
  Just to remind everyone of the history, we have placed multiple 
offers concerning the Affordable Care Act before the Senate. The last 
offer seems to me something that we ought to be able to agree on, or 
certainly be willing to sit down and discuss. It only has two points, 
and it's basically a question of fairness.
  Why should Members of Congress and high appointees in the executive 
branch and our staffs go into the exchange and be able to bring 
subsidies with us, when no other American can do that?
  It's just not fair.

[[Page H6251]]

  Now, we could amend the law and let everybody come into the exchanges 
with subsidies. That would be fair. Or we could say, you know, really, 
Members of Congress and their staff are at a fundamental level 
employees of the Federal Government and they ought to be in that, and 
that would be fair. But let's treat everybody the same.
  More fundamentally, currently, the President has unilaterally decided 
to exempt 1,100-plus organizations. He's unilaterally, in a 
questionable measure, constitutionally, decided to suspend parts of the 
law for a year and exempt Big Business.
  We think, gosh, if you're going to do that, shouldn't every single 
American have the right to decide whether or not they want to 
participate in this for just 1 year until everybody is actually 
operating under the same system?
  That too is a question of fairness. Give every individual American 
the same relief from a mandate that you're giving Big Business and Big 
Labor. It just seems to me commonsensical.
  It doesn't mean you have to stop the exchanges.

                              {time}  1345

  You don't have to undo the program. Just treat everybody the same. Be 
fair. That's the Republican proposal in front of the Senate right now, 
and, frankly, I think they probably don't want to discuss it because 
it's a hard one to say ``no'' to because it's fundamentally fair. And 
that's all we've asked, is that the Senate, which has rejected it, at 
least come to conference and talk about it.
  The real issue here beyond the questions of policy is whether the 
Senate is going to be allowed to dictate unilaterally what the House 
does. Is it just going to say, no, you've to do it our way? We're not 
going to negotiate. We're not going to go to conference. We're not 
going to deal with you. You have to do it our way. That's not the way 
the system was set up.
  My friend, Chairman Rogers, pointed that out quite succinctly. We've 
got a way to handle this. It's called go to conference, argue, and work 
out the differences. And I suspect we're going to see the same thing a 
little bit down the road from the President, who's told us and told the 
Speaker this week, I'm not going to negotiate with you on raising the 
debt ceiling in the United States. You just have to do it unilaterally. 
You have to put the country further into debt without any discussion of 
what we can do to change the trajectory of that debt.
  Now, that's a remarkable change from where he was in August of 2011. 
A remarkable change. He was in a very different place and position and 
was willing to sit down and talk. I don't know why he would change that 
now.
  So I think we should do something in this bill to build on this 
piecemeal approach. We should pass these different measures. We agree 
these parts of government ought to be open; and we should continue to 
work through, conference with our friends in the Senate and ultimately 
in negotiation with the President of the United States on the debt 
ceiling.
  And so I urge the adoption of this rule.
  In closing, I'd like to, again, say that one of the basic functions 
of Congress is to fund government. This rule would allow 10 or more 
pieces of that government to open again to provide for crucial services 
that they provide. I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
the underlying legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I again rise in strong opposition to 
the rule and the underlying resolution.
  I oppose this rule because it is not a serious effort to end the 
government shutdown engineered by House Republicans by cherry-picking 
some programs to fund while leaving unfunded other programs critical to 
our nation and its future.
  Both President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Reid have made it 
crystal clear that they will not accept this game-playing because the 
piecemeal strategy now being pursued by House Republicans is not an 
honest or serious option to reopen the government and will not end the 
impacts of this shutdown that extend across our country.
  Mr. Speaker, USA Today said it best and I quote:

       House Republicans who forced the government closure offered 
     to reopen some of the most popular programs, such as the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, on a piecemeal basis. It's 
     like seizing a school bus full of kids then offering to 
     release the cutest ones. The mounting toll will increasingly 
     expose the shutdown's foolishness. The sooner the Republicans 
     free all their hostages, the better.

  Initially, our friends across the aisle were content to take the 
whole nation hostage by refusing to fund the government unless the 
Affordable Care Act was defunded. That effort failed. Undaunted, House 
Republicans tried again. The effort failed again.
  This past Monday, the House Republicans refused for the third time to 
take up and vote on the clean CR passed by the Senate last week, and 
which the President has stated publicly on several occasions he would 
sign.
  Instead House Republicans voted to shut down the government.
  Now faced with strong public backlash--more than 70% of Americans 
disapproving of the government shutdown engineered by the House 
Republicans, the majority is trying to extricate themselves from this 
debacle by bringing to the floor and passing ``mini-CRs'' providing 
minimal funding for the following programs that enjoy strong and broad 
public support:
  (1) Nutrition Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Act (H.J. 
Res. 75);
  (2) Nuclear Weapon Security & Non-Proliferation Act, (H.J. Res. 76);
  (3) Food and Drug Safety Act (H.J. Res. 77);
  (4) Preserving Our Intelligence Capabilities Act (H.J. Res. 78);
  (5). Border Safety & Security Act (H.J. Res. 79);
  (6) American Indian and Alaska Native, Health, Education, and Safety 
Act (H.J. Res. 80);
  (7) National Weather Monitoring Act (H.J. Res. 82);
  (8) Impact Aid for Local Schools Act (H.J. Res. 83);
  (9) Head Start for Low-Income Children Act (H.J. Res. 84);
  (10) National Emergency and Disaster Recovery Act (H.J. Res. 85); and
  H.R. 3223--Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act (H.R. 3223).
  Mr. Speaker, these ploys are a cynical waste of time giving false 
hope to innocent Americans who depend on the services provided by these 
programs. But House Republicans know they have no chance whatsoever of 
becoming law. The Senate will not pass them and the President would 
veto these piece-meal measures if they made it to his desk.
  All we are doing is wasting time when we should be helping people.
  We need to pass the clean CR approved by the Senate so we can keep 
our promises to our veterans, as well as the doctors, nurses, and 
hospital workers who take care of our wounded and healthy warriors.
  We need to pass the clean CR approved by the Senate so we can fund 
our engineers and technicians who maintain all of our critical military 
equipment to keep our troops safe and take care of national security 
infrastructure.
  We need to pass the clean CR approved by the Senate so we can fund 
our IT security folks who protect us from cyber-attacks, and our 
astronauts who risk their lives to push the technical boundaries of 
knowledge for all mankind.
  These exceptional Americans, and the people who depend on them and 
benefit from their work, do not deserve to have been locked out of 
their workplaces since Tuesday.
  These exceptional Americans deserve a Congress that does its job and 
keeps America open for business.
  For these reasons and Tore, I oppose this rule and the underlying 
amendments it makes in order and urge my colleagues to join me in 
urging the passage of H.J. Res. 59 as amended by the Senate so that the 
federal government will reopen for business to serve the American 
people and end the disruption in the lives of 800,000 dedicated workers 
who take pride in the greatest jobs in the world: serving the American 
people.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An amendment to H. Res. 371 offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. 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 one 
     hour 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.

[[Page H6252]]

       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.J. Res. 59 as specified in section 6 of 
     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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on 
this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________