[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 136 (Friday, October 4, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6262-H6272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 371, I call
up 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, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 371, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 75
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of
applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds,
for the Department of Agriculture for fiscal year 2014, and
for other purposes, namely:
[[Page H6263]]
Sec. 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate
for operations as provided in the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013 (division A of Public Law
113-6) and under the authority and conditions provided in
such Act, for continuing projects or activities (including
the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) that are not
otherwise specifically provided for in this joint resolution,
that were conducted in fiscal year 2013, and for which
appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available
by such Act under the heading ``Department of Agriculture--
Domestic Food Programs--Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)''.
(b) The rate for operations provided by subsection (a) for
each account shall be calculated to reflect the full amount
of any reduction required in fiscal year 2013 pursuant to--
(1) any provision of division G of the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-
6), including section 3004; and
(2) the Presidential sequestration order dated March 1,
2013, except as attributable to budget authority made
available by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013
(Public Law 113-2).
Sec. 102. Appropriations made by section 101 shall be
available to the extent and in the manner that would be
provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
Sec. 103. Unless otherwise provided for in this joint
resolution or in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2014, appropriations and funds made available and
authority granted pursuant to this joint resolution shall be
available until whichever of the following first occurs: (1)
the enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or
activity provided for in this joint resolution; (2) the
enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2014 without any provision for such project or
activity; or (3) December 15, 2013.
Sec. 104. Expenditures made pursuant to this joint
resolution shall be charged to the applicable appropriation,
fund, or authorization whenever a bill in which such
applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization is contained
is enacted into law.
Sec. 105. This joint resolution shall be implemented so
that only the most limited funding action of that permitted
in the joint resolution shall be taken in order to provide
for continuation of projects and activities.
Sec. 106. Amounts made available under section 101 for
civilian personnel compensation and benefits in each
department and agency may be apportioned up to the rate for
operations necessary to avoid furloughs within such
department or agency, consistent with the applicable
appropriations Act for fiscal year 2013, except that such
authority provided under this section shall not be used until
after the department or agency has taken all necessary
actions to reduce or defer non-personnel-related
administrative expenses.
Sec. 107. It is the sense of the Congress that this joint
resolution may also be referred to as the ``Nutrition
Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Act''.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
General Leave
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include any extraneous material on H.J. Res. 75, and that I may
include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon in support of H.J. Res. 75,
which would continue funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or commonly known as the WIC
program.
The fiscal year 2013 Agriculture appropriations bill provided
sufficient funding, even after sequestration, totaling $6.5 billion, to
ensure that all participants receive both nutritious food and the
nutrition services that are necessary for their health and their well-
being.
Before the United States Department of Agriculture completely shut
down its Web site, information could be found on their Web site stating
that short-term funding was available for WIC through the contingency
reserve fund, carryover funds, and other available resources.
While some States have indicated they have sufficient funds to at
least work several more weeks, other States are not so fortunate. Many
of us have seen headlines, perhaps received phone calls into our
offices from constituents who have reported that their appointment at
their local WIC clinic has been canceled or that clinics are being
closed. Numerous times we have heard our colleagues across the aisle
mention that WIC cannot continue without an appropriation for fiscal
year 2014, and this will leave millions of women, infants, and children
without proper nutrition.
Now is a chance, Madam Speaker, for my colleagues to join us in
keeping this important program fully functioning and operational. By
passing the resolution that we have on the floor this afternoon, we
will help 8.7 million low-income women, infants, and children who are
nutritionally at risk to continue to receive the nutrition they need.
This resolution will keep WIC clinics across the Nation open. No more
appointments will have to be canceled.
I believe that every Member of this House of Representatives believes
that WIC participants need and should get the participation they need,
and I would ask my colleagues to support this resolution, that we
supply adequate nutrition for women, infants, and children as we move
forward.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to this piecemeal approach of funding our
government. I am the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.
The bill dealing with all of those issues is on the House floor. We
did our job, as the chairman so eloquently spoke about. The committee
fulfilled its commitment to review the whole budget. We passed H.R.
2410 out of committee and even adopted a rule to bring it to the floor
in June, but we didn't move the bill because the timing with the now-
expired farm bill wanted to hold everything off.
I'm just wondering, Madam Speaker, when is the House going to
announce its conferees on the farm bill? The Senate has done it not
once, but twice. If we had a conference, we could be bringing up the
full bill and not just this piecemeal--let's take a little bit of this
that we like and that that we like and do what I call this menu of
choice, which, if you're not on that menu, everything is out.
Nobody can challenge my support on WIC. I mean, I am a returning
Peace Corps volunteer. If there's anybody that got training on the need
for feeding women, infants, and children in this Congress, it's my
experience in living in a poor barrio in South America.
But this does nothing for the 48 million people who currently need
food stamps, what we call the SNAP program. This does nothing for the
rest of the kids and the family who may be hungry, going to school and
can't get access to school lunch. This does nothing to open the door
for Federal workers who help people in rural agriculture to produce the
food. This bill does nothing to provide a remedy for rural areas like
Colorado and California, who were just ravaged by floods and fires, to
do the post-op cleanup and restoration to prevent floods from coming
this winter. This does nothing for the farm service agency loan
borrowers to help those that are needing loans to put their livestock
or their grain or other commodities into the program that is going to
be feeding the women, infants, and children. So just one little piece
that they carve out and suggest that: Oh, Congress, do this.
I want you all to listen to this. Since I've been here since 1993,
we've passed 111 CRs. Not one of them had this battle, had this
conditionality, had this shutdown of government--none of them. Why now?
What's different? You want to take away the President's health care
bill. That was enacted 3\1/2\ years ago. You passed a CR the year it
was adopted. You passed a CR after it was adopted. You passed a CR
after that. What is it?
Let's stop being so mean and so broken about the ability to keep our
government open.
[[Page H6264]]
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the
full Committee on Appropriations, Chairman Rogers.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding me this time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in full support of H.J. Res. 75. This bill
ensures that the nearly 8.7 million women, infants, and children who
rely on the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children will continue to receive critical nutrition assistance
without interruption.
{time} 1645
This bill provides funding for WIC at the fiscal year 2013 post-
sequester rate of $6.5 billion until December 15, or until we can enact
full-year appropriations legislation. That is the ultimate goal of this
bill, Madam Speaker, to move us closer to ending this government
shutdown by providing regular appropriations for all government
programs. To achieve that, we've got to have an adult conversation
about what this might entail and how we can get there.
And I've got a great suggestion, Madam Speaker. Monday night, the
House passed an amendment to the CR over to the Senate and asked for a
conference with the Senate. Then the Speaker named House conferees.
Now the normal traditions of this body, as all of us know, is that
when the House and the Senate pass differing versions of the same bill,
how do we resolve the difference? Well, we appoint conferees. We have
some House Members and some Senate Members that are selected by their
respective leaders. And they go up, and they argue and debate and
amend. And they come up with an agreement that they then bring back to
each body for approval, and that becomes the law.
That procedure is in play right now. I mean, the House has appointed
conferees. We've got a table arranged downstairs for the Senators to
join us in resolving the shutdown. And what does the Senate do? What do
we hear from the Senate? A big loud snore, that they're not willing to
come to the table and talk. Just talk. We may not be able to agree. But
we can talk and try to work it out for the American people.
And as we work this out, we've got to be sure that our most
vulnerable citizens don't fall victim to politics. This bill will take
care of those who count on WIC to meet their nutritional needs--our
women, our infants, our children. Because this language was essentially
included in my original initial clean continuing resolution, I endorse
it today. This House, I think, should support it today.
But our colleagues in the Senate should also support it. This would
be the seventh bill we've sent them to help reopen the Federal
Government in the last 3 days. The seventh bill. We've heard nothing
from them. Altogether, these bills provide nearly a third of the
discretionary funding that's needed to operate the entire Federal
Government. So in the last 3 days, we've passed bills to fund a third
of the government.
The Senate keeps demanding from us, and yet they won't vote on these
bills that would be a part of that clean CR. The math just doesn't add
up, Madam Speaker.
Though this piecemeal funding approach is not my preferred mechanism
to move forward, it does move us incrementally forward. I would rather
we fund the government with regular appropriations bills, so-called
regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield the chairman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. This House passed four of those regular bills
this year. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the
Capitol passed none. For all of their talk on the other side of the
Capitol about returning to regular order, it seems the Senate has made
very little action to achieve that goal. We're in this mess today in
part because of that. But passing this bill will help us get out of it.
So I urge my colleagues to support an end to this shutdown with this
WIC program, support this bill, and pass it today.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York, Mrs. Nita Lowey, the ranking member of the House
Appropriations Committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
reckless Republican shutdown.
WIC services are vital to new mothers and their children, and
Democrats have long been strong supporters. In fact, it is puzzling to
me that Republicans today claim to be so supportive of WIC when, just 4
months ago, they proposed to deprive over 200,000 women and infants WIC
benefits.
Funding one budget item at a time, even one as important as the WIC
program, does nothing to help children get immunizations or help
working families find child care. Republicans are just disconnected
from reality.
This bill is nothing more than a Republican ploy. Madam Speaker, as
my friends know very well, we could end the Republican shutdown today
if the majority would only allow a vote on the Senate-passed bill,
which includes the funding levels that Republicans wrote, the funding
levels of the Republicans. That was the negotiation. That was the
discussion. The Democrats agreed to the Republican funding levels. And
that would be signed by the President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. FARR. I yield the gentlewoman from New York an additional 20
seconds.
Mrs. LOWEY. If you really care about the mothers and infants who
benefit from this program, you should vote ``no'' on this bill and
demand that the Republican leadership allow the House to vote on the
Senate bill to immediately end this reckless Republican shutdown.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao), one of the members of our
Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations.
Mr. VALADAO. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of House Joint
Resolution 75, the Nutrition Assistance for Low-Income Women and
Children Act.
This bill would continue funding until December for the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children,
commonly referred to as WIC. Across the country, over 8.9 million moms
and kids under the age of 5 are living near or below the poverty line
and depend on supplemental vouchers by the WIC program to purchase
healthy food.
The WIC program is especially important to my constituents in the
Central Valley of California. My district suffers from 14 percent
unemployment. That's almost double the national average. Some regions
of my district are suffering from more than 30 percent unemployment,
making it nearly impossible for many mothers to find work, despite
their best efforts, so that they may provide for their families.
Congress must put aside partisan politics and come together, working
across party lines to pass this critical legislation so that mothers in
California's Central Valley and across the entire country can continue
to feed their children.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the congressman
from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member of the Education &
the Workforce Committee.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, Congress should reopen the Federal Government in its
entirety and not continue to hold the Federal Government and the
American people hostage. The fact is, by closing the Federal
Government, Republicans in the House are jeopardizing critical services
for mothers and their children. They should have realized this when
they shut down the entire Federal Government.
It is not enough just to restore one set of services for women,
infants, and children, like the WIC program, but not to fund food
stamps or income assistance or housing vouchers, for example, which the
same mothers and children rely on to hold their families together. This
is literally taking food out of the mouths of children.
Republicans are taking a lot of heat for closing down the government,
so they want to open up one part or another to relieve the pressure
under
[[Page H6265]]
them. But this doesn't help these families. This doesn't help these
families because they're cutting other resources and services to these
families.
Republicans should allow the House to vote on a bill to open up the
whole Federal Government, and then we can sit down and talk about what
the budget will look like for the rest of the year.
They should stop trying to kill the new health care law that will
help some of these very same families that depend upon WIC. And they
should stop picking winners and losers based upon the political
realities out there that the American public is getting angrier and
angrier at how they're treating the recipients of Federal assistance in
this country today.
I urge people to vote against this legislation.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), the chair of the House
Administration Committee.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I certainly thank my
colleague for yielding the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in very, very strong support of the
Nutrition Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Act.
You know, much of the controversy that's been surrounding this
government shutdown has really been focused on ObamaCare. We keep
talking about ObamaCare, et cetera. But this bill that we are
considering right now has absolutely nothing to do with ObamaCare.
Nothing. The only thing at issue in this bill is will we help provide
supplemental nutrition programs for American mothers, their babies, and
their children, period. That is the issue before us today.
Now I know that many of my friends on the other side, Madam Speaker,
are going to say that they oppose this legislation because they need to
have an entire government funding bill or nothing at all. And I would
just note, when they say that each and every time, they then accuse us
of being absolutists. But they will not accept anything, except an
entire government funding bill. I also know that many on the other side
of the aisle will look to their hearts and will support this bill. And
we will pass this bill with very strong bipartisan support.
I certainly hope that the leaders in the Senate will look as well at
the very broad bipartisan support that we will have for this bill and
that they will take it to heart as well and take it up.
Madam Speaker, more than half the babies that are born in my great
State of Michigan are enrolled in the WIC program, and currently, the
State of Michigan is only able to sustain this program for the next few
weeks.
I would ask my colleagues, again, to look to your heart, look to your
heart. We're not talking about defunding ObamaCare or anything like
that. We are talking about women and their children and their babies. I
would hope that we can join together today across the aisle, pass this
bill, and see to it that mothers and infants and children in Michigan
and all across America get the support that they need.
Mr. FARR. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro), the former ranking member of the Ag Appropriations Committee
and now the ranking member of the Health and Human Services
Subcommittee.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this cruel
political game the majority is playing this afternoon. Since they took
office, this Republican majority has repeatedly tried to slash the
women, infants, and children feeding program--2011, 2012, 2013.
I sit on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. This past
summer, on a party-line vote, the Republican members on the committee
who have just gotten up to speak to you voted to slash the WIC program
and take nutritious food from over 200,000 pregnant mothers and
infants. I introduced an amendment to restore this critical funding,
and the Republican majority shut it down.
When it mattered, when we all voted, the Republican majority cut this
funding. And now they're trying to use low-income families for a
political message. This is disingenuous, this is duplicitous, and it is
shameful.
Last month, on a party-line vote, they took food stamps from over 4
million low-income families, seniors, veterans, and children.
{time} 1700
Are we meant to believe that today they have come to Jesus?
Or is it just politics?
I have strongly supported the Women, Infants and Children feeding
program my entire career; and when I served as chair of the Ag
Appropriations Subcommittee, the Democrats funded WIC at record levels,
expanded it as the need arose during a recession.
We are talking about people's lives. This majority chose to shut the
government down, and families all across this country are being
affected. Furloughed workers, small businesses, and families cannot get
loans. Biomedical and scientific research has stopped.
Food safety, food banks, flu tracking, Federal economic reports,
immunizations--they have been stopped because of what the Republican
majority is doing here.
The gamesmanship is heartless; it's offensive. The government has
been shut down now for 4 days.
Do not use hungry families as political pawns. It's time to stop
these bills, fund the government, reopen it. And I urge my colleagues
to oppose this resolution.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, I've got to tell you, this is remarkable. I
hear a passionate speech from the gentlelady from Connecticut, and I
hear my friends across the aisle applauding?
We're here to provide funding for 9 million women and children
because we're here to provide funding for people who are in need of
help and aid. And when we're here to do the work of the people, that
you applaud and say, no, I don't want that money to go to them? That's
wrong.
We may not agree on a lot of things, but there are things that we
agree on, and this is one of them. And to applaud and say that we don't
want to provide this funding for women and children?
I have six kids of my own. There are people in need in my community.
And for my friends to say no to that and applaud a speech saying do not
vote to help our women and children in America, that's wrong.
Listen, we have a shutdown right now. Why?
Everyone in this Chamber is in ObamaCare. In America, we are in
ObamaCare. All we've asked for is that Barack Obama and the
administration join America and this institution in ObamaCare. That's
what we've asked for.
We know that Big Business and the lobbyists came to Washington, D.C.,
and they said, give us a 1-year exemption from the tax. Give us an
exemption. And Mr. President, he said, okay, Big Business, I'll give it
to you.
All we've said is, Mr. President, treat the individuals in America
the same way you're treating Big Business--equality, fairness. If it's
good for the American people, if it's good for this institution, it is
good for Mr. Carney and President Barack Obama and their
administration.
Let's all join this together. Let's hold hands. Let's all join
ObamaCare, but let's not treat one group of people differently than the
rest of us.
Join us, Mr. President.
Let's open up this government. Let's bring the President in, and
let's treat the individuals the same as the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, we've passed 111 CRs without any of this
rancor. There are no excuses. They have all been clean.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-
Allard), a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to yet another
disingenuous legislative charade by my Republican colleagues to appear
[[Page H6266]]
as if they are doing something about their unnecessary government
shutdown.
The fact is, Republicans can open the government today by bringing a
clean continuing resolution to the floor. Instead, Republicans are
targeting the WIC program to try and fool the American people into
believing they are concerned about the painful effects of their
government shutdown.
The National WIC Association sees through this charade and is urging
Members of Congress to oppose the bill, calling it ``a cynical ploy to
use low-income, nutritionally at-risk mothers, and young children as
political pawns for political ends.''
The NWA also stated it has sufficient operating funds through October
and ``will not tolerate efforts to leverage the nutritional health and
well-being of pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, their babies and
young children to satisfy the political ends or strategies of
policymakers.''
I could not agree more. I urge my colleagues to heed their words and
vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).
Mr. COTTON. I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for the time.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, I introduced legislation that would ensure
the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program remains funded during
a government shutdown. Today, I'm very grateful to my colleagues for
swift action to fund this important program.
In Arkansas, WIC benefits 42,000 kids, 24,000 infants, and 2,000
moms. Fortunately, the Arkansas Department of Health reached an
agreement earlier this week with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
fund the WIC program, though only on a week-to-week basis.
Moms and kids shouldn't suffer because Senate Democrats have shut
down the government to protect their special perks and political
allies, because that is what has happened here, Madam Speaker.
The House of Representatives, earlier this week, passed a continuing
resolution that would fund the government, to include funding, in part,
for ObamaCare; and we asked that the Senate Democrats only accept two
simple principles: that the White House and Congress follow the same
ObamaCare rules as the rest of America and that if Barack Obama is
going to give big businesses a 1-year break from ObamaCare, then
families and workers should get the same 1-year break.
But Senate Democrats refused to fund the government with those simple
terms, the terms that Congress should follow the laws they impose on
the American people, and that workers and family should get the same
breaks as businesses.
Now, I know there's many important pieces of legislation in front of
the Senate today. For instance, they earlier passed a resolution
calling next week National Chess Week. Now, that's obviously an urgent
matter for this country. But women and kids in need shouldn't be
political pawns in the Senate's game.
So I say to the Senate, let's put aside partisanship and pass this
legislation for the kids, just as we did earlier this week for the
troops.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Berkley, California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, first I rise in strong
opposition to this bill, but I just have to say what nerve the
Republicans have to bring this bill to the floor.
As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have witnessed
Republicans vote over and over again to cut funding for the Women,
Infants and Children's program. In the past year alone, they have cut
$500 million, which cuts, in my district alone, 21,000 participants.
But let me tell you, they have refused in committee to listen, and they
have insisted on these massive cuts.
Now, today, they are pretending, pretending that they care about the
WIC program with this cynical ploy. It is simply outrageous to play
politics with pregnant women and their children. What nerve.
Republicans are now trying to pretend that they want to reopen
government that they shut down, using our most vulnerable as pawns. It
is hard to believe what I'm hearing today from Republicans about their
support for nutrition assistance for women and children, when, in the
Appropriations Committee, they say and they vote just the opposite.
How hypocritical can they get?
Americans are not fooled. They want the government, the entire
government, open.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. FARR. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. LEE of California. They want us to shut down the shutdown that
the Tea Party extremists shamefully created. We can reopen the
government today, right now, on a bipartisan basis, if Republicans
would allow a vote on the bill that would reopen the government.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this shameful bill and
insist on a vote to open the entire government up. The American people
deserve that.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a great Rules Committee member.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, there are nearly 50 million people who
are hungry in this country. Seventeen million of them are children, and
because we are still emerging from this difficult economy, hunger is
not getting better in America. The only reason why people aren't
starving is because of the essential safety net programs that we have
put in place.
For months and months and months and months, we have seen the
Republicans in this House try to gut the SNAP program, try to slash
funding for WIC, and for school lunches and for Meals on Wheels. And
now, today, we're supposed to believe that they are champions for
hungry kids? Today they want us to believe that they care about poor
people?
Please. This charade is an insult to the intelligence of the American
people. It is a cynical ploy that won't feed a single pregnant mother
or won't provide formula to a single needy infant. It's going nowhere.
It is a stunt. It's legislating by press release, and it's shameful.
We should pass a clean CR and reject this woefully inadequate bill
and try to end hunger in America. Do not treat poor women and children
as political pawns. It is not right, and you know it is not right.
We have an obligation to our most vulnerable neighbors. This fails
that test, and it fails that test badly.
Pass a clean CR. Do your job. This is cynical.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished doctor from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott) of the
Ways and Means Committee.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the Republican Caucus is standing out
here naked, and they keep bringing fig leaves out to cover themselves.
This is another fig leaf. It is not intended to do anything.
At the end of the Second World War, it was determined that 43 percent
of the people who were drafted were unfit for military service because
of nutritional deficiencies. We have, as a public policy, from that
point onward, fed people at every level. School lunches, Head Start,
WIC program, SNAP--they have all been designed for making this a
healthy country.
One of my colleagues says, well, this has nothing to do with
ObamaCare. It has everything to do with ObamaCare. If you don't feed
kids the proper things, they get sick. Everybody knows that,
apparently, except the Republican caucus, Madam Speaker.
The fact is that what we need to do is bring out a clean resolution
and reopen the government and feed all the people. This business about
picking one group that's entitled to a little something and leaving
some others out is absolutely cynical beyond belief, and it should not
happen in this place.
We have the ability to have the most healthy people in the world. We
produce food, we ship it everywhere, and yet you hear from my
colleague, Mr. McGovern, how many people are
[[Page H6267]]
hungry in this country because they don't have it.
Now, somehow you think a mother's going to sit there, she's got her
stuff from the WIC program, right? She's got a kid that's 1 year old
and one that's 3 and one that's 7, and she's going to say to the 3 and
the 7-year-old, you don't get anything; but I've got a little something
for your brother Johnny?
What kind of situation is this? Do you understand what it's like to
be deprived in this country?
We can do better than this. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for
this cynical fig leaf.
I urge you to vote ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee), another member of our Subcommittee on
Agriculture for Appropriations.
Mr. NUNNELEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, for
his leadership.
To what lengths will the Democrats go in order to protect ObamaCare?
They've already denied pay to National Guardsmen and -women and
Reservists, ceased lifesaving medical research. They've stopped VA
benefits. Yet these measures have passed the House of Representatives
with bipartisan support.
Now, will they deny food to women, infants and children?
{time} 1715
The Democratic colleagues in the House that support this measure,
maybe they can talk to their friends and get them to support it as
well.
This morning, a key White House official gloated and said, ``We're
winning.'' Madam Speaker, this is not a game. Those men and women in
the Guard and the Reserves that have been furloughed don't think this
is a game. Those awaiting lifesaving medical research and treatment
don't think anyone is winning. Those veterans who are waiting in line
because they cannot apply for the benefits that they have earned don't
think this is a game. And the women, infants, and children that are
awaiting food under this bill know this is not a game.
It's time to end this charade. Let's pass this bill and then invite
our colleagues in the Senate to come to the table and talk.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, for 111 times we've voted for CRs to feed
everybody, not just a few.
I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin,
Gwen Moore.
(Ms. MOORE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MOORE. Madam Speaker, today's consideration of H.J. Res. 75 is a
sham, a masquerade, a charade, and it features this relentless drumbeat
and parade of pretentious concern for suckling babes and lactating
women.
Who do you think you're fooling? You're not fooling the National WIC
Association. After all, they have watched the Appropriations Committee
of this majority vote out up to half a billion dollars in cuts in the
WIC program for these 8.6 million suckling babes.
And what of these lactating women? I breastfed my kids; and I tell
you that when you cut $40 billion out of food stamps, women cannot
produce milk because they won't have fresh fruits and vegetables and
lean meats.
And what about the siblings of these children--school-age children
who are the 210,000 who rely on free lunch that this bill does not
address?
Madam Speaker, I would hope that we would not deny 859,000 children,
elderly, and disabled. Enough of this carnival. Let's get off this
merry-go-round and reject this chicanery.
Mr. ADERHOLT. At this time I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, the word ``hypocrisy'' has been thrown around a lot
tonight.
I got to Congress about 3 years ago, and my understanding was if you
were Republican, you hated women, infants, children, veterans, and
seniors.
This week, we have tried to address the problems of women, infants,
children, veterans, and seniors. For some reason, our colleagues can't
understand that because they say, You are using these people as
political pawns.
And the hypocrisy of it is they no longer can stand up when they say
that they defend these folks because they have turned their backs on
them this week; and instead of helping them, they have turned a cold
shoulder.
When I was a child growing up, I used to make a list every night when
it came close to Christmas of everything that I wanted, and I'd wake up
Christmas morning and I never got everything I wanted, but boy, was I
glad for everything I got.
If you're telling me tonight that you are turning your back on the
same people that you say only your party defends, that is the height of
hypocrisy. It's totally uncalled for on this floor.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alabama has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
Congresswoman from Florida, Kathy Castor.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of 1,500 of my
neighbors in Tampa who have been furloughed at MacDill Air Force Base
due to the GOP government shutdown. They were laid off on Tuesday, and
they will not be paid.
I'm very proud of my community. The banks, credit unions, and the
Tampa Bay Partnership are coming together to ensure they have bridge
loans so the families stay afloat. But it should have not come to this.
It is so irresponsible for the GOP to shut down the government because
they disagree with a duly enacted law.
I also rise on behalf of small businesses in my community. They are
stymied from their expansion plans because the GOP has shut down the
Small Business Administration. They want to buy equipment or get
working capital, but the Republicans have shut them down.
I rise on behalf of the veterans in my community that were waiting
for disability benefits; but due to the shutdown, they're going to have
to wait longer.
And I rise on behalf of mothers, infants, and families all across
this country in opposition to the Republicans' continued slashing of
the basic sustenance that they need to keep going. This is not
consistent with our American values.
This dysfunction is irresponsible, and it's causing real pain. I urge
my colleagues to set aside the political gimmicks, allow a vote on the
bill that will get people back to work, and end this GOP shutdown
before it causes greater pain.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Barber) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BARBER. Madam Speaker, enough is enough. We must end this
reckless government shutdown.
I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up the Senate amendment
to the continuing appropriations resolution, H.J. Res. 59.
We must end this blame game. We must come together and put the
American people first. Enough is enough.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
As the Chair previously advised, that request cannot be entertained
absent appropriate clearance.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) a distinguished Member with a great deal of
seniority and probably the most knowledgeable Member in the Congress
about all the health care issues in this country.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the people that we're talking about here tonight in
this debate are people who work very hard and have a couple of
children, usually, and need some help with their nutrition when they're
pregnant, when their children are very young. Those folks have another
problem, too. It's lack of health insurance.
A lot of them have worked their whole lives. They have worked for a
[[Page H6268]]
small business. They made just a little bit too much money for
Medicaid, but not nearly enough to pay $10,000 or $15,000 a year for a
health insurance policy.
On Tuesday, for the first time in their lives, for many of them,
there's a chance to do something about that. A great number could
enroll in Medicaid--their whole families. Others were able to buy
health insurance for $10 or $15 a week to cover themselves and their
families.
This whole government shutdown is about shutting down that
opportunity for them to buy health care. So all these crocodile tears
tonight about these families, the reality is we wouldn't be having this
debate if there wasn't a compulsion on the majority side of the aisle
to kill the Affordable Care Act.
You are not going to be able to.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 1\3/4\
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alabama has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I'm the last speaker, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Many of us that have spoken here are appropriators. Our job is to
bring 12 bills to this floor, 12 conference reports. We've done none.
We've totally failed. We're not the first Congress to do that. We've
had to pass 111 CRs in the 20 years that I've been here in Congress.
None of them had these prerequisites that we've got to meet with the
President, we've got to repeal something, we've got to defund
something, we don't like this, we don't like that. In fact, as
appropriators we know that the rules of this House don't allow us to
legislate on appropriations bills.
So even these requests that everybody is making of what we ought to
do have to take a waiver by the Rules Committee--waiver to our own
House rules--to bring all this stuff up. And in the meantime, we've
done nothing, and so the government shuts down because we haven't been
responsible for that oath of office that we took here.
It didn't say just fund a part of government. Today, we have a choice
out of 10 parts of government. It's your popular parts, your menu, your
special. Well, I didn't come here for any Tea Party special. I came
here for the whole government--the hundreds of thousands of parts that
put together this incredible, wonderful government that we have the
privilege of serving.
But I can't go and tell my colleagues to go vote for this, vote for
that on conditionality of this and that. All those things violate our
procedural rules, violate our history.
This institution is 113 sessions old. As I said, since I've been
here, 111 times we've come to the point where we need to pass a CR.
We've never done it like this.
Reject this piecemeal legislation, and let's get on with the
business. Let's open up government.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to address a couple of issues that have come up during our
discussion here this afternoon.
I've heard some of my colleagues across the aisle say they believe
WIC has been underfunded. I do want to point out that all eligible
participants are being served; and to my knowledge, no one has been
turned away from the program.
The FY 13 Ag approps conference agreement provided more than $7
billion for the WIC program. After sequestration and rescissions, the
total equaled $6.5 billion. At the end of FY 13, WIC had carryover
funds, or remaining funds, totaling nearly $300 million. Even with
sequestration, WIC has been able to serve all eligible participants and
still have funding left over for the end of the fiscal year by $300
million. Clearly, the program has received sufficient funding, and we
have certainly made sure that to be the case.
In closing today, I would hope that my colleagues would join me in
support of this resolution. There's nothing cynical about what we're
doing here. You can read the resolution. I have it right here. It
simply continues to provide funding for the WIC program, and it
provides certainty. It ensures that WIC clinics will be open,
appointments will be kept, and food benefits will be provided.
There's nothing, again, cynical about this. The only thing that's
cynical about this is if you decide to politicize this bill.
It's interesting that those who claim to be the defenders and
supporters of this program are the very ones actually coming here this
afternoon that are opposing the bill. My colleagues will have a chance
to be cynical and vote ``no,'' but I hope they will not turn their
backs on providing certainty for low-income women and children. All we
want to do is to keep the program fully operational and fully funded.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on H.J. Res.
75, a piece-meal mini-CR,'' which woefully underfunds Women-Infant-
Children Program, or WIC as it is known through the end of the year.
Notwithstanding the issue of the majority refusing to allow a vote on
a clean continuous resolution, and dealing with the deficit and the
majority's refusal to accept Obamacare--which must be addressed--we
cannot stop investing in children because they are the future of our
country.
WIC is a federal assistance program for health care and nutrition of
low-income pregnant women, breast-feeding women, and infants and
children under the age of 5.
In my congressional district, 67 percent of children under the age of
4, or 41,300, are eligible for WIC. This is the ninth highest district
in the country.
Indeed, in a story in Houston Chronicle, a young Houston mother posed
a very relevant question. She asked, ``How am I going to feed my
children?'' Has it come to this Mr. Speaker? A mother in the United
States of America has to worry about her children going hungry. This is
an outrage.
In fact, in my state of Texas there are 971,000 WIC eligible
children, the 7th highest in the nation.
Madam Speaker, you might be interested to know that the top 10 states
in terms of WIC eligible women and children are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
% WIC
Rank State Eligible Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ Mississippi.... 54 115,600
2............................ Arkansas....... 53 103,800
3............................ New Mexico..... 52 74,900
4............................ Oklahoma....... 51 132,100
5............................ West Virginia.. 50 52,000
6............................ Louisiana...... 50 148,600
7............................ Texas.......... 49 971,000
8............................ Tennessee...... 48 196,700
9............................ Kentucky....... 47 132,000
10........................... South Carolina. 47 138,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agriculture Department, which funds WIC, released $100 million in
contingency funds, out of the $125 million on hand when the budget
impasse began, and is working with states to distribute about $280
million in unexpended funds left over from the 2013 fiscal year.
According to USDA, with these funds states should be able to continue
to supply new and existing WIC participants only through the end of
October.
Madam Speaker, you will be as disappointed as I was to learn that
When I attempted to access more up-to-date statistics on the WIC
Program, SNAP, and hunger, I was greeted by a message that said: ``Due
to the lapse in federal government funding, this website is not
available.''
The National WIC Association does not support this dishonest attempt
by House Republicans to extricate themselves from the mess they created
when they recklessly voted to shut down the government and harm our
economy and wreak havoc on the lives of millions of Americans who
provide and depend upon services and benefits critical to our nation.
According to the National WIC Association opposes this bill because
it is ``a cynical ploy to use low-income nutritionally at-risk mothers
and young children as political pawns for political ends'' and urges
Congress:
to end the uncertainty that exists in our fiscal environment
and the already challenged lives of vulnerable mothers and
young children by responsibly discharging and fulfilling its
moral obligations to the nation. We will not tolerate efforts
to leverage the nutritional health and well-being of pregnant
and breastfeeding mothers, their babies, and young children
to satisfy the political ends or strategies of policy-makers.
Madam Speaker, if Congress fails to pass a ``clean'' continuing
resolution before month's end, many WIC Programs across the nation will
run out of operating funds and clinics will be forced to close their
doors, turn participants away, and end benefits.
This would be unconscionable.
Normally I would be pleased to be here today to talk about the
funding for this program, but this is different. What the majority is
doing is playing games with the lives of real
[[Page H6269]]
people--real mothers and their children--struggling to get by in the
real world.
WIC is the nation's premiere preventive public health nutrition
program targeted at low-income mothers and young children who have or
are at risk for developing nutrition-related diseases and disorders.
Serving nearly 9 million mothers and young children, including 53
percent of all infants in the country, WIC provides nutrition
education, breastfeeding education and support, referrals to medical
and social services and a small nutritious food package.
Numerous studies show that WIC has been effective in improving health
outcomes for its target populations.
For example, every dollar spent on a pregnant woman in WIC saves up
to $4.21 in Medicaid costs for her and her newborn because WIC reduces
the risk for preterm birth and low birth-weight babies by 25 percent
and 44 percent, respectively.
The average first year medical cost for a premature or low birth-
weight baby is $49,033 compared to $4,551 for a baby born without
complications.
Children on WIC are also more likely to consume key nutrients,
receive immunizations on time, and have high cognitive development
scores than their peers not participating in WIC. Recent studies in Los
Angeles County and New York State have documented a reduction in
obesity rates in the WIC child population over the past several years.
In light of these successes, it is no wonder that recent surveys
indicate that WIC retains broad support across political, ideological,
ethnic, and socio-economic lines in America. A bipartisan national
survey of 1,000 likely November 2012 voters indicated nearly 3 in 4
Americans want WIC funding to remain the same or increase.
Because of increase emphasis by Congress and the WIC program, between
1998 and 2010 the breastfeeding rate in WIC has risen from 41.3 percent
to 63.1 percent. According to one estimate, if 90 percent of U.S.
mothers exclusively breastfed their infants to 6 months, the U.S. would
save $13 billion per year in medical expenses and prevent over 900
deaths annually.
Inadequate funding will have short-term and long-term consequences.
In the short-term, mothers and young children cut from the program may
go without healthy food or enough food.
In the long-term, healthy childhood growth and development may be
hampered resulting in health and development problems that will have
life-long physical, mental, and financial costs.
A full funding level for the WIC program would ensure that no
eligible applicants are turned away; maintain current and anticipated
WIC participation levels; assure adequate nutrition services and
administration funding; respond adequately to economic forecasts of
rising food cost inflation; and provide funds for nutrition services to
maintain clinic staffing and competitive salaries.
For these reasons, we should be working to pass H.J. Res. 59 as
amended by the Senate. That is the best way to keep faith with all
persons who serve the American people as employees of the federal
government, and the women and children who depend upon the WIC program.
USDA
Due to the lapse in federal government funding, this
website is not available.
After funding has been restored, please allow some time for
this website to become available again.
For information about available government services, visit
usa.gov
To view U.S. Department of Agriculture Agency Contingency
plans, visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/contingency-plans
Message from the President to U.S. Government Employees
____
[From the Huffington Post, Oct. 4, 2013]
Government Shutdown Jeopardizes WIC Program
(By Michael Rubinkam)
Allentown, Pa. (AP)--Jacob Quick is a fat and happy 4-
month-old with a big and expensive appetite. Like millions of
other poor women, Jacob's mother relies on the federal Women,
Infants and Children program to pay for infant formula--aid
that is now jeopardized by the government shutdown.
Pennsylvania and other states say they can operate WIC at
least through the end of October, easing fears among
officials that it would run out of money within days. But
advocates and others worry what will happen if the shutdown
drags on beyond that.
``What's going to happen to my baby?'' asked Jacob's
mother, Cierra Schoeneberger, as she fed him a bottle of
formula bought with her WIC voucher. ``Am I going to have to
feed him regular milk, or am I going to have to scrounge up
the little bit of change I do have for formula or even baby
food?''
WIC serves nearly 9 million mothers and young children,
providing what advocates say is vital nutrition that poor
families might otherwise be unable to afford.
Schoenberger, for example, said her son goes through about
$40 worth of formula a week. ``It's like a car payment,''
said the unemployed mother of three.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants and Children--better known as WIC--supplies low-
income women with checks or debit cards that can be used for
infant formula and cereal, fruits and vegetables, dairy items
and other healthy food. WIC also provides breast-feeding
support and nutrition classes. Poor women with children under
5 are eligible.
Just before the shutdown, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture had warned that states would run out of WIC cash
after a ``week or so.'' Now the agency says WIC should be
able to provide benefits through late October, with states
using $100 million in federal contingency money released
Wednesday and $280 million in unspent funds from the last
budget year.
If the aid dries up, desperate moms will probably dilute
their babies' formula with water to make it last longer, or
simply give them water or milk, said the Rev. Douglas A.
Greenaway, head of the National WIC Association, an advocacy
group. Pediatricians say children under 1 shouldn't drink
cow's milk because they can develop iron deficiency anemia.
``These mothers have trust and confidence in this program,
and that trust and confidence has been shaken by Congress,''
Greenaway said. ``This is just unconscionable.''
Danyelle Brents, 22, a single mother of three, receives
about $200 a month in vouchers for food and formula for her
two children and baby. She is being hit doubly hard by the
shutdown: She is a contract worker for the Federal Aviation
Administration who catalogs records for aircraft
certification, and is furloughed. Now, with her baby going
through 10 cans of formula a month, she might lose key help
with her grocery bill.
``That's a lot of money, $15 a can,'' she said. ``Now that
I'm out of work, WIC is how I support my family . . . I'm
scared at this point to go buy anything extra.''
Groups that fight hunger say they are also concerned about
the confusion that needy mothers may be feeling. Though most
WIC offices are open, many mothers mistakenly assumed that
benefits were cut off.
Advocates are also worried that there will be a cumulative
effect as other, smaller government feeding programs run out
of money.
Adding to the uncertainty While USDA has said that food
stamps are guaranteed to continue through October, it is
unclear what will happen after that.
In Pennsylvania, whose $208 million WIC program supports
250,000 women and children, all local WIC offices remain open
and benefits are being dispensed as usual. The state Health
Department said it has $25.5 million on hand to continue
operating the program through October. Ohio said it has
enough money to last through the second week of November.
``Ohio WIC is open for business!'' proclaimed the headline
on a state website.
Utah's WIC program, though, immediately closed its doors
Tuesday in the wake of the government shutdown, meaning that
families who hadn't already received their October vouchers
were out of luck and new applications couldn't be processed.
The state got $2.5 million in USDA funding on Thursday, and
WIC offices throughout the state planned to reopen by noon
Friday.
Charitable groups were already filling the void. A Facebook
group called ``The People's WIC--Utah'' was launched hours
after WIC offices closed, matching up families in need with
those able to donate formula and other food.
In Layton, about 25 miles north of Salt Lake City, a
donation drive was planned for Saturday, with organizers
asking for fresh fruits and vegetables, unopened baby formula
and other necessities.
Food banks, meanwhile, are bracing for a surge in requests
for help if WIC runs out of money.
Linda Zimmerman, executive director of Neighbors In Need,
which runs 11 food banks in Massachusetts, said her
organization already provides a lot of baby formula to its
clients, most of whom get WIC aid as well.
``I think they're truly nervous,'' Zimmerman said. ``We're
going to have to be doing a lot of work to make sure we can
keep up with need for infant formula.''
In some places, grocery stores refused to honor WIC
vouchers, assuming they wouldn't get paid. Terry Bryce,
director of Oklahoma's WIC program, said WIC officials called
and emailed grocers to assure them the program is still
funded.
In New Jersey, Patricia Jones said she is worried about
losing her WIC assistance.
``You're affecting families that haven't done anything to
you,'' said Jones, a 34-year-old mother of five. Because of
the shutdown, she was turned away from the Social Security
Administration office in Newark when she tried to get
printouts of her children's Social Security numbers to renew
her welfare and WIC benefits.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, let's be clear about what's happening here.
We are in day-four of the shutdown of the federal government for one
reason, and one reason alone: The desire of a radical wing of the
Republican Party to dismantle the Affordable Care Act.
To that end, House Republicans have rejected the clean government
funding bill passed by the Senate, and shut down the government. The
shutdown could end today if Speaker Boehner would bring up the Senate-
passed funding bill. There are more than enough votes to pass it and
send the bill to
[[Page H6270]]
the President, who would sign it. The only reason we aren't voting on
the Senate bill is because Speaker Boehner has not stood up to a
radical group of Tea Party lawmakers who are demanding repeal of the
Affordable Care Act.
Instead of re-opening the entire government, the Republican
Leadership is playing more games as they continue to bring up piecemeal
bills to fund the most visible casualties of the shutdown they caused.
Earlier this week, we had a vote to reopen the Smithsonian and the
National Parks. Then we had a vote to reopen the National Institutes of
Health. Then the Republicans began to feel the heat from veterans, so
they brought up a bill to reopen the VA. These Band aid bills are an
attempt by Republicans to give themselves political cover for causing
this shutdown in the first place.
Today we have another Band aid bill before us. This bill would
restart funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children through December 15. Nearly 9 million moms
and kids under five living near or below the poverty line rely on WIC
for healthy food, breastfeeding support, infant formula and other
necessities. It's as if Republicans have just figured out that closing
down the federal government has health consequences when mothers cannot
provide food and nutrition for their kids.
Let me read a statement from the National WIC Association, which
urges the House to reject the bill before the House. They call this
Republican bill ``a cynical ploy to use low-income nutritionally at-
risk mothers and young children as political pawns for political ends.
Funding the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants
and Children (WIC) in this piecemeal, short-term, stop-gap manner is
not an acceptable solution. . . . NWA urges Congress to end the
uncertainty that exists in our fiscal environment and the already
challenged lives of vulnerable mothers and young children by
responsibly discharging and fulfilling its moral obligations to the
nation. NWA will not tolerate efforts to leverage the nutritional
health and well-being of pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, their
babies, and young children to satisfy the political ends or strategies
of policy-makers.''
It's time to stop playing politics, and have a vote on the Senate's
clean funding bill. It's time to end the shutdown.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 371, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
{time} 1730
Motion to Recommit
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the joint
resolution?
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. I am, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Kirkpatrick moves to recommit the joint resolution
H.J. Res. 75 to the Committee on Appropriations with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
That upon passage of this joint resolution by the House of
Representatives, the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other
purposes, as amended by the Senate on September 27, 2013,
shall be considered to have been taken from the Speaker's
table and the House shall be considered to have (1) receded
from its amendment; and (2) concurred in the Senate
amendment.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Arizona?
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I would like for the motion to be read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Speaker, it is not surprising that the WIC
program is the latest subject of the majority's ploy to use low-income
mothers and children as political pawns.
WIC enjoys bipartisan support. A bipartisan poll in 2012 found the
program enjoyed 67 percent approval among the American people,
including 53 percent of conservatives. By providing things like fresh
fruits and vegetables, low-fat dairy and salmon, tuna for breastfeeding
mothers, every dollar spent on pregnant women in WIC produces $1.92 to
$4.21 in Medicaid savings for newborns and their mothers. That just
makes common sense. On Wednesday, the USDA estimated that WIC would
continue operations for a week or two, thanks to a small contingency
fund.
In Arizona, 29 percent of children are food insecure, and over 36
percent of Arizonans live in WIC-eligible households. In my district,
the Arizona Department of Health Services in Apache and Navajo Counties
says 70 percent of families were WIC-eligible in 2010.
We need this program. But the bill before us is not meant to relieve
needy families. It is only a tool meant for partisan gain.
The Republican budget proposal would cut WIC 22 percent. The National
WIC Association estimates that the sequester has resulted in nearly
12,000 deserving families in Arizona dropped from the rolls, yet now
the majority reverses itself to fund this program.
Beyond the cynicism of this tactic, WIC cannot stand alone. It is a
gateway to health care and social services for families, services that
will remain unsustainable due to the shutdown--services like low energy
assistance through the Department of Energy, immunizations through
Health and Human Services, and early childhood education programs like
Head Start. Where is the funding for these programs? The majority
proposes a fragmented program that would be crippled.
My motion to recommit would open up the entire Federal Government for
funding so that we're no longer picking and choosing the needs that we
are going to meet.
Can the Chair explain why it is not germane to keep all of the
Federal Government open instead of just a tiny slice?
Stop these political games. Let's get serious about helping the
American people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I make a point of order against the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama will state his
point of order.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, the instructions contained in the motion
violate clause 7 of rule XVI, which requires an amendment be germane to
the bill that is currently under consideration.
As the Chair recently ruled on October 2 and October 3 of 2013, the
instructions contain a special order of business within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules, and therefore, the amendment is
not germane to the underlying bill.
So, Madam Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Arizona is recognized
on the point of order.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Speaker, doesn't the bill before us fund the
Federal Government? My motion to recommit would open up the entire
Federal Government so all of our needs can be met.
If we are funding WIC, why aren't we providing funds for school
safety? If we are funding WIC, why aren't we providing funds for
supplemental nutritional assistance? Why aren't we protecting food
safety for every single American? Can the Chair explain why it is not
germane to keep all of the Federal Government open instead of just a
tiny slice? Why are the Republicans in favor of closing down the
Federal Government and denying taxpayers the benefits they've already
paid for? This makes absolutely no sense to the hardworking, everyday
people trying to make a living.
[[Page H6271]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized on the point of
order.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, on the point of order, it would
be my view that you could clarify the legislative process by ruling
against the point of order.
If the point of order had not been raised, the next order of business
would be an up-or-down vote on keeping the entire government open. A
sustaining of the point of order would mean that if we do what we've
done in the last few bills, there would be a challenge to your ruling.
If that challenge were to be sustained, then we could get that up-or-
down vote because overruling the Chair would mean that we could get an
up-or-down vote.
So you should rule against the point of order to clarify all this. We
can get a clear, up-or-down vote on keeping the government open, but on
the other hand, Madam Speaker, the vote on keeping the government open
will be on the motion to table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point
of order.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, may I be further heard for just
15 seconds?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may conclude.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, if you rule against the point
of order, we can have an up-or-down vote. Otherwise, the up-or-down
vote will essentially be on the motion to table. We should vote against
the motion to table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will rule.
The gentleman from Alabama makes a point of order that the
instructions proposed in the motion to recommit offered by the
gentlewoman from Arizona are not germane.
The joint resolution extends funding related to the special
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and
Children. The instructions in the motion propose an order of business
of the House.
As the Chair ruled earlier today, as well as on October 2 and October
3, 2013, a motion to recommit proposing an order of business of the
House is not germane to a measure providing for the appropriation of
funds on committee jurisdiction grounds.
Similarly, the instructions here propose a non-germane amendment. The
point of order is sustained.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on passage of the joint resolution, if arising without further
proceedings in recommittal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 185, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 523]
YEAS--223
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
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
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
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--185
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
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
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
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
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Bass
Cardenas
DeGette
Grayson
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Jones
Labrador
Lummis
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Pastor (AZ)
Perlmutter
Pittenger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Tipton
Vargas
Visclosky
Waxman
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
{time} 1801
Messrs. VELA and LEWIS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[[Page H6272]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 164, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 524]
YEAS--244
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
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
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
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)
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Petri
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
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--164
Andrews
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
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
Delaney
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Bass
Cardenas
DeGette
Grayson
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Labrador
Lummis
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Perlmutter
Pittenger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Tipton
Vargas
Visclosky
Waxman
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
{time} 1808
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________