[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 8, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6362-H6370]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HEAD START CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
371, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 84) making continuing
appropriations for Head Start 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 (Mr. Westmoreland). Pursuant to House
Resolution 371, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 84
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 Head Start for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes,
namely:
Sec. 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate
for operations as provided in the Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2013 (division F of Public Law 113-6) and
under the authority and conditions provided in such Act, for
continuing all projects or activities under the Head Start
Act (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
Health and Human Services--Administration for Children and
Families, Children and Families Services Programs''.
(b) The rate for operations provided by subsection (a) for
each project or activity 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 Congress that this joint
resolution may also be referred to as the ``Head Start for
Low-Income Children Act''.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Head Start
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill 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 Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
General Leave
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 84, and that I may
include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise today to present H.J. Res. 84, the Head Start for Low-Income
Children Act. This bill provides Federal funding at the current, post-
sequester rate for the Head Start program, which millions of children
across the country rely on to fulfill their educational and health
needs.
As we work our way out of this government shutdown mess, we shouldn't
let some of our most vulnerable citizens--low-income children with no
recourse--suffer. In my home State of Kentucky, 20,715 kids rely on
Head Start to provide a helping hand. If we don't do anything about
this today, 2,800 kids in Kentucky will lose access to Head Start
programs starting November 1.
This bill provides funding for Head Start at an annual rate of $7.586
billion. This funding will help reopen the doors to the more than 1,600
Head Start programs across the country. As before, the funding will
last until December 15 or until we enact full-year appropriations.
This is another step the House is taking to alleviate the burden of
this current fiscal dilemma and move us closer to ending the government
shutdown.
The nine bills the House has passed since October 1 to reopen the
government--this will be the 10th--constitute nearly one-third of the
Federal Government's discretionary budget. These 10 bills fund very
critical programs, cleanly, as the Senate has demanded, and have been
supported on a bipartisan basis in this House.
So why are these bills still sitting on Harry Reid's desk?
Why is the Senate not making every stride it can to help our Nation's
disadvantaged children, hungry families, and our veterans?
This method of funding the government is not my preferred way, Mr.
Speaker, nor is it the standard, but while we work to find an end to
the shutdown, we should fund those programs we can as soon as we can.
I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will take this opportunity to
meet us at the negotiating table. We've got a great deal to work out,
but this can't be done if we are not willing to talk and listen to each
other.
It is the time-honored way, Mr. Speaker. When the two bodies disagree
on something, each body passes a bill, and we send it to conference
with the other body. That's what should be done here.
In fact, this body, several days ago now, appointed conferees on this
topic and sent it over to the Senate, only to be met by a loud snore.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want us to get together and talk about ending this
shutdown. Though I wish we were able to end the shutdown in its
entirety, this bill will at least reopen one indispensable government
program and lessen the toll that the shutdown is taking on the American
people.
This Congress is facing a great deal of difficult choices in the near
future, but taking care of our children should be a top priority. I
urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the reckless Republican shutdown. I wish my
Republican colleagues had shown this same level of concern for Head
Start earlier in the year when the majority proposed to slash the
Labor-HHS spending bill by 22 percent. The majority did not have the
courage of their convictions to stand behind their cuts and even
release a copy of their bill.
Today's bill does nothing to help families afford child care or to
invest in other pre-K services that are so important for children's
development.
Even if House Republicans' piecemeal bills were enacted, at the rate
they're going, it will take until after Christmas before the government
is fully up
[[Page H6363]]
and running. The Republican plan is completely irresponsible.
We could end the shutdown today if the Speaker allowed a vote.
Democrats have negotiated, and we didn't just meet in the middle. We
agreed to the Republican spending level in the stopgap bill, but
Republicans insist on repealing the Affordable Care Act, including
allowing insurance companies to deny care to children.
Vote ``no'' on this bill. Demand the House vote to immediately end
the reckless Republican shutdown.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), who is the chair of the House
Administration Committee.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly thank the chairman for yielding
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I strongly support the Head Start
program, and I am so hopeful that the House will pass this bill today
and, certainly, that the United States Senate will take it up as well.
Head Start is a program that helps American children get the extra
help that they need at an early age. I'll tell you, you can talk to any
mother or grandmother. You don't need some scientific study to tell you
that this program, an early intervention, is absolutely critical to
making sure that every child can optimize their individual potential
and to achieve their own opportunities.
During this shutdown, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about
ObamaCare, but this bill has nothing to do with ObamaCare, absolutely
zero to do with ObamaCare. This bill is about America's children, about
Head Start. There are no strings attached. It just funds Head Start.
Now, I know that many of our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle say that they can't support any funding bill unless they get
exactly what they want, which is an entire continuing resolution to
finance the entire government. They want exactly what they want,
otherwise they can't do this kind of a thing. And yet, it is
interesting to note that they call Republicans ``absolutists.''
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, many others on the other side of the aisle
will support this funding bill for Head Start, as they have supported
these other funding bills that we have been passing since the beginning
of the shutdown, in a bipartisan way.
President Obama and the Senate majority leader keep saying that they
will not negotiate, but I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker that they will
negotiate and that we can go to a conference committee, that we can
work out our differences, that we can stop the shutdown, because to
just keep saying, as the President keeps saying and the Senate Majority
Leader keeps saying, that they will not negotiate on funding the
government and they will not negotiate on raising the debt ceiling, I
do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that that is a proper way forward.
Certainly, on issues like American children, we can put politics aside.
{time} 1245
Mrs. LOWEY. Before I yield to my next speaker, I would like to make
it clear that we negotiated a spending bill. We took the Republican
number. Let us pass that spending bill. Speaker Boehner should bring it
to the floor at your number and then raise the debt ceiling. Then there
is plenty of time to negotiate on all the outstanding issues.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady
from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I join the National Head Start
Association in opposing this bill.
At a time when our Nation's at-risk families are suffering on
multiple levels due to sequestration and the Republican government
shutdown, a piecemeal approach like this one is not in anyone's best
interest. This disingenuous Republican effort would selectively fund
some education programs while failing to provide funding for others
that poor children and their families rely on.
The National School Lunch Program, the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, Title I, after-school, special education, and rural
education programs, among others, are all left out of this bill. It's
unconscionable that our Nation's most vulnerable children are being
denied Head Start services because of Speaker Boehner's refusal to
bring to the floor a clean bill to open the government.
Let's stop this charade of pitting seniors against children, veterans
against families, one group of Americans against another. Let's open
the government and serve all our countrymen.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder), a member of the Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. YODER. I thank the chairman from Kentucky for his work on this
legislation to help provide funding for Head Start kids to have an
opportunity to realize all the opportunities that life presents.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask us to work together and set aside
our differences for the good of the American people.
We are divided. We have an ongoing dispute about whether Congress
should receive special treatment and whether individuals should be
given the same exemptions that businesses have been given under the
Affordable Care Act. That is in dispute.
Why can't we go forward with legislation and policies and things that
we all agree on? The Senate has a position and the House has a
position, and we can go on and on with this debate about whether we
should fund special treatment for Congress, businesses, and labor
unions under ObamaCare; but there are unnecessary casualties to that
debate.
Today, we have an opportunity to take Head Start off the table--a
program that serves 1,146,468 kids nationwide; and 1,436 of these young
students are in Kansas' Third District. These vulnerable students need
our help. These are kids with little opportunity, disadvantaged by
poverty and circumstances that put them behind from day one. Head Start
for low-income children is a ray of hope, coming at a critical time
when these young learners are developing their young minds.
Head Start works for students, Head Start works for families, and
Head Start works for the American taxpayer. So why can't we come to an
agreement as to the funding for this portion of government? We can't
come to it for every portion--we get that--but we are in agreement that
this shutdown is unnecessary and that we can fund Head Start today.
For some, this is a philosophical debate, but for the young learners
at Head Start of Shawnee Mission, Kansas; Olathe, Kansas; or the
Children's Campus in Kansas City, these are real lives and real futures
at stake. They are counting on us. Surely we can take our partisan hats
off for a moment and fund a bill to get each of these kids a chance to
succeed.
Let's pass a clean bill that funds Head Start today. Let's put aside
our differences. Let's find common ground. We have the power today to
take Head Start kids out of this debate and ensure their funding.
Let's show the American people that today, on this issue, on these
kids, there is no disagreement.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) control the remainder of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlewoman from New York, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of the United States of America has now
been closed for a full week. People are out of work. Some are even
going hungry. Our economy is poised on the brink of a disastrous
default, and yet this Republican majority continues to play political
games with the future of our country and the lives and health of
American families.
The hostage being negotiated today is Head Start, one of the true
American success stories. Unquestionably, it is the most effective
early childhood development program ever developed, and I've heard so
often from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how
unsuccessful the program is and what a terrible program it is and that
we ought to cut it.
[[Page H6364]]
For almost 50 years now, Head Start has provided comprehensive
childhood development, literacy, and family services to nearly 30
million preschoolers from low-income and working families. It now
serves nearly 1 million children every year. It's an example of how
dedicated teachers, with the help of a smart Federal investment, can
enrich the lives of our citizens--the cornerstone of our efforts to
close the achievement gap--combat poverty, and provide all kids with
the opportunity to thrive.
It is another important Federal program that Republicans are claiming
to support today in full defiance of their previous voting record. It
is as if the majority expects that we have all forgotten the positions
they have been promoting for years--up to this point. We have not
forgotten.
I am the ranking member of the subcommittee that oversees Head Start
funding, and I have had to continually fight tooth and nail to see this
program adequately funded and to protect it from the deep cuts put
forward by the majority.
In 2011, the very first bill the Republican majority passed tried to
cut Head Start by over a billion dollars; and 218,000 kids would have
been cut from the rolls, 16,000 classrooms closed, and 55,000 teachers,
assistants, and staff would have lost their jobs.
That was the majority's opening offer, and they didn't blink an eye.
Parent, teachers, and advocates stood up and said ``no'' to these cuts,
and the majority had to back down.
Instead, what they're doing now would be automatic cuts, the across-
the-board cuts known as sequestration, which was never meant to become
law. They're using that to do their work for them. Because of those
cuts, this majority has voted to make permanent that 57,000 students
all across America have already lost access to Head Start. Even the
children who are able to remain in Head Start can expect shortened
school days, elimination of home visits, and teacher layoffs. In total,
78,000 children have lost access to this early learning since this
House majority took office, and those sequester cuts will grow worse
over time.
This is a self-inflicted government shutdown. Head Start centers are
being forced to close. The longer the majority perpetuates this
shutdown, the more kids are being denied an opportunity to learn.
I'm happy to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle embrace
the importance of early childhood education. President Obama has called
for universal preschool, which would make a profound and positive
difference for children and their families across the country; but this
Republican majority turned its back on that proposal, walked away from
it, and didn't even consider it.
Let's stop playing games with people's lives, their health, and our
children's future. It is little wonder that, according to the latest
polls, a full 70 percent of the country opposes this hostage-taking and
wants us to get back to work.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what I just
heard. The gentlelady was describing the importance of the Head Start
program in glowing terms, and yet she turns around and tells us she's
going to vote against funding for the Head Start program. That's a
puzzle to me.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
California (Ms. Lee), a member of the subcommittee.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, first of all, we all know that
we're 8 days into this Tea Party Republican government shutdown with
$2.4 billion in lost economic activity. This hostage-taking continues.
The Tea Party Republicans continue to want to deny millions of
Americans health care. That's why this shutdown continues, and the
public knows this.
Because of the devastating sequester, already more than 57,000
students have lost their Head Start spots. At the same time, the Tea
Party Republicans insisted on cutting food stamps by $40 billion for
these same children.
So you can't tell me that today they care about these kids when they
fight to cut Head Start and every other program for young people in the
Appropriations Committee.
The National Head Start Association doesn't buy this very sinister
approach, which will not reopen the government. They know that there
are enough votes to open the government up if Speaker Boehner brings
the Senate budget bill to the floor.
Also, let me just say many Democrats did not want the funding level
of the Senate budget bill, but compromised just to get the government
open.
Let's shut down this shutdown.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the chairman of the full
committee, the National Head Start Association has said--I'm commenting
on this sham of a bill before the House today--that they are opposed to
this effort because they realize that it is a charade. I think it's
important to note that. They are certainly committed--and have been for
years--in terms of early-learning education and education for our
children, but they, too, understand what is happening here today.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is now the second week of the Republican shutdown
of our government--shut down because they want to put insurance
companies back in charge of America's health care.
Republicans in the House think they can get out of this horrible mess
they created by partially opening one part of the government or
another. Today, it's Head Start--a program I strongly support and one
that used to be supported on a bipartisan basis to provide education,
health and nutrition services to at-risk children.
When Republicans voted to shut down the government, they closed the
doors on thousands of these children and their families. After several
bad news articles about the Republicans shutting down Head Start, they
now want to partially open it.
Keep in mind, restoring funding to Head Start only serves a small
percentage of at-risk children who need preschool and are eligible for
it. It is not enough to restore one set of early-learning services for
at-risk children but to not fund the Child Care and Development Block
Grant, special education services, and the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, which provides early childhood services for children
from low-income families as well.
If the Republicans are serious about supporting early childhood
education, we should vote on the clean, Senate-passed budget to reopen
the government so that services for those kids and their families can
be fully restored.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We should have that vote today.
It's time to stop the Republican shutdown. I call on the Speaker to
let us vote. Let us vote. Let us vote on a bill to open the whole
government.
As of today, enough Republicans have publicly stated that they're
ready to join all of the Democrats to vote to open the government.
Republicans should allow the House to vote on the Senate bill--a bill
that was negotiated by the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, and the
leader of the Senate, Mr. Reid, but was rejected by the Republican
caucus.
Bring that bill to the floor. Let us vote, and let these children get
these services.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, a quote from the National Head Start
Association:
The proposed Head Start for Low-Income Children Act, while
attempting to provide a funding extension for Head Start,
does not put forward a true solution to the government
shutdown.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
[[Page H6365]]
{time} 1300
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the definition of ``farce'' is: a foolish
show, mockery, a ridiculous sham.
Now, this Head Start funding bill and cry for providing a head start
for our low-income children is indeed a false start at this 22 percent
sequestration level. The politicians' mantra that education is the key
does not pass the laugh test where our babies are locked out and out of
luck--no LIHEAP, immunizations, disability education assistance. This
is a key to what--a key to a government careening toward default? It is
a government that has defaulted on the future of our children.
Let's shut down the shutdown.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to read a headline from
Connecticut's Hartford Courant: ``Head Start Memo: Nearly 1,000
Children Shut Out.''
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
You will find no stronger supporter of the Head Start program than I.
For years, I worked first as a teacher in Head Start, and later I was a
supervisor for Parent Involvement and Volunteer Services.
I know Head Start. The experience was life changing--inspiring me to
join the war on poverty and dedicate myself to improving the lives of
low-income children and families. Thanks to Head Start, thousands of
children have been put on a solid path to a well-rounded education.
Head Start teaches children to feel good about themselves, to have a
positive self-image. Head Start introduced children to books and
reading and to how to resolve conflicts. We gave full examination and
discovered educational disabilities, and we gave them the path to good
health services.
The opposite side of the aisle claims they support Head Start and
early childhood education, but they supported sequestration that has
robbed 57,000 children of the opportunity to be in the Head Start
program.
This Republican destructive strategy--picking winners and losers, who
will survive and who will not--is not the right way to go.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentlewoman.
Ms. WATERS. Put a clean CR on the floor so that we can vote for all
of government to be protected. Don't pit children against veterans, et
cetera.
I will not be bullied into supporting this measure. I urge my
colleagues to stand with me. Despite my love for this program, I must
vote against this measure.
I ask my colleagues to stand up to these Republican tricks and vote
``no.''
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am really puzzled. We hear speaker after speaker on
the other side tell us how committed they are to these poor children in
the Head Start program, and yet here's the chance, Mr. Speaker, to
continue this program. Yes, it does not include the entire government,
but are we going to hold hostage these kids from poor families who are
desperate for this program. Are we going to hold them hostage, or are
we going to go ahead and approve this short-term funding for the Head
Start program?
If you believe in Head Start, it seems to me you would stand in the
well and say: I support this bill because it continues the Head Start
program.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just comment for a moment in that I think that it
is not a question of holding these children hostage. You are holding
the entire Nation hostage for an effort that is not going to change,
and that is: the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land.
Let's have a vote on this floor of the House of Representatives. We
can reopen this government and not hold anyone hostage any longer.
If my memory serves me well, in 2011, the gentleman, whom I do have
great respect for, voted for H.R. 1--and maybe it was his bill that he
passed--which would have cut Head Start by over $1 billion.
It is puzzling to me that all of a sudden my Republican colleagues
have gotten religion on the Head Start program. It is so inconsistent
with where this majority has been with regard to Head Start and so
disingenuous and duplicitous that we know it is a political ploy.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Republican shutdown is a
disaster for families across America and this great country, and we are
not fooled by this political gimmick on the floor today. It is a
gimmick; it is a gimmick; it is a gimmick.
The Republican position in this Congress, as demonstrated in their
budget, has been to slash support for Head Start students. I know this;
Head Start parents know this; Head Start teachers know this; and our
communities back home know it all too well. In fact, in the House
Budget Committee just this past March, Democrats offered an amendment
to eliminate the severe Republican cuts to education and Head Start
students and to stop the layoffs of teachers. Republicans scoffed, just
like they are scoffing at their basic responsibility to negotiate and
pass a budget and keep government working.
Mr. Speaker, when you shut down Head Start classrooms, did you know
that the parents of these students may not be able to go to work or
keep their jobs? That is not smart. Head Start keeps parents working or
studying for their own degree so they can move out of poverty into the
middle class.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the gentlewoman 10 seconds.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. So I urge Speaker Boehner to bring a clean
bill to the floor that funds the U.S. Government, not these political
gimmicks.
Enough of the gimmicks. We know we have 200 Democrats ready to
support a clean CR and at least 20 or so Republicans. End these
political gimmicks. Fund the government. End this calamity for American
families.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I think the best way to
resolve this debate is to ask a simple factual question.
There are two approaches here. The majority approach wants to pass
this piecemeal bill. We want--``we,'' meaning the entire Democratic
Caucus and enough Republicans to pass it--we want to take up the Senate
clean bill and vote on it now.
Which of these two approaches would provide the most help most
quickly to the Head Start centers across the country? Which would
really help the program?
If this bill passes, it will languish in the current political
turmoil and go nowhere. If the Speaker puts on the floor the clean
Senate continuing resolution, it will pass this afternoon, and the Head
Start centers that are afflicted by this problem all over the country
will open tomorrow morning.
If you care about helping the Head Start program, you will vote in
favor of the Senate bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because I
actually think Head Start is an important program, and I've supported
it. I've seen and I've gone to Head Starts throughout my district and
have read to the kids who are there. The reforms that were done that
made it more of an educational preschool type of atmosphere--that was
done, gee, I don't know, probably about 7 or 8 years ago--I think
actually helped improve Head Start, making sure that children are ready
when they start regular K-12. So I support this.
This is important, and in this atmosphere where it is all or nothing
and no negotiations--we're not going to talk to you--we are left doing
these micro or minivan-type bills in which we take the most important,
essential programs and say, you know, we agree with you that Head Start
is a worthwhile program and that it's worth
[[Page H6366]]
funding. So why don't we just work together and agree that we will fund
Head Start at the budget level.
I heard comments earlier about some Republicans wanted to cut it, and
yes, there are going to be some that do. So if you think that it's that
cynical, call us on it. Vote for it. You want Head Start to continue,
and you think we're being cynical with this? Call us on it. Vote for
it.
Let's send a bipartisan measure over to the Senate, and force them to
vote for it. What's the worst thing that's going to happen? Oh, Head
Start gets funded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleague who just spoke, vote
for it. Let's take the bill that was passed in the Senate, bring it
here. There are apparently enough votes to reopen this government. Vote
for it.
Why be afraid of the process? That's what we do here--we vote. Bring
the bill here. Let's open it up and take our chances. What are we
afraid of? What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that, in fact, some
Republicans will join all of the Democrats to pass a bill that reopens
the Federal Government and protects these children, protects our
veterans, protects our workers, protects everyone? There is just a fear
and a loathing here which I truly do not understand.
With regard to Head Start and other early childhood education
programs, we know what those economic dividends are. It's about
productivity; it's about prosperity; but it's about the quality of
their lives and their futures. That's what ``Head Start'' means.
Given the record of this majority and its past actions in cutting
funding over and over and over again for Head Start, it just proves how
disingenuous this gimmick is here today. They're playing to the crowd,
but the crowd isn't listening. No one will forget what you have done.
In fact, Head Start graduates are less likely to need special
education services, to be left back a grade, or to get into trouble
with the law. They're more likely to go on to college and to have a
professional career. It is a program, yes, that works wonders, which is
why we've all been surprised and dismayed by our Republicans and their
attempts to slash this funding in the past.
May I ask the gentleman if he has any additional speakers or if he is
going to close?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and
I am prepared to close.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am dismayed, but we are all
dismayed. We have fought these battles on Head Start in the committee.
As to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, who sits on
the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, we fought over and over and over again in
talking about how important this program is; and day after day after
day after day, we have been told that the facts belie themselves, that
this is not a successful program, that kids aren't learning. They have
dug up studies from 20 years ago to tell us that this program doesn't
work. All of a sudden, today, they think that there is merit in Head
Start?
I hope this extends to what the President has asked for in universal
early childhood education. Do you know that the Labor-HHS Subcommittee
never even saw a markup, nor did they ever mention, with their draft
proposal, early childhood education? They dismissed the President's
view of early childhood education and providing universal early
education for kids; and now, today, they stand before this body and
this Nation and say they support this effort.
Let me just tell you, this is more of the reason why the hostage-
taking by the majority has to end. Every day, we waste time with these
gimmicks mortgages our kids' futures and our future as a Nation. It's
not responsible governing, and it's time for it to end.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
{time} 1315
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard here today what we have heard in the last
several days from the other side--that they will not vote for any of
these individual bills because we are not bringing the entire
continuing resolution before the House.
But let me point out: with this bill--the 10th in this series that we
brought out in a so-called piecemeal fashion--it will take us to about
a third of the CR, the original continuing resolution. So we are
passing the continuing resolution one piece at a time, but nevertheless
we are passing a continuing resolution.
To say that I am not going to vote for this bill because you don't
have all of the bills before us doesn't have much logic to it. It means
that every bill that comes before the House could be argued the same
way: I won't vote for that bill because it doesn't fund whatever or
enact whatever piece of legislation that is waiting in the wings.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is about Head Start. It is not about health
care; it is not about procedure; it is not about whether or not this is
piecemeal or full, or what have you. It is about Head Start. If you
believe in the Head Start program and the hundreds of thousands of
young children in this country--and families--that are depending on
this program, it seems to me you would lay everything else aside and
vote for that program, which I am asking our Members to do as I close.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for Head Start and my opposition to this legislation, which locks in
the automatic cuts to funding for this critical program.
A high-quality early education puts children on a path to succeed
academically and in life. Decades of research and data show that
investments in high-quality early education help close the achievement
gap, increase high school graduation rates, and reduce the need for
special education. These investments also lower the rates of criminal
activity and dependence on public assistance. In fact, one study found
that for every dollar invested in high-quality early education,
taxpayers saved $7 in other costs.
When first entering school, a child's health, emotional well-being,
and social surroundings are all factors in their ability to succeed
academically. Head Start recognizes this and, in turn, merges literacy
and math activities with access to vision screenings and other basic
health care services.
Additionally, the program brings parents into the development process
by providing them with support services in and out of the home, such as
access to social workers, peer counseling, and parenting programs.
In my state of Pennsylvania, Head Start centers serve more than
37,000 children, but now, this unnecessary government shutdown
threatens this important program. Already, Head Start programs in six
states have been shuttered as a result of the federal government
shutdown. This is unacceptable.
Instead of playing games, House Republicans should join Democrats in
finding a solution to this shutdown. It is time pass a clean CR, reopen
the government, and allow all children access to early education.
Our nation deserves better. Our children deserve better.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.J. Res 84, Head
Start for Low-Income Children Act. Head Start represents an innovative
idea from a Democratic led Congress that was created for the education
of our smallest citizens who come for poor or low income households.
We know that if these children have an early start in education it
levels the playing field of life and they can have an equal opportunity
to succeed.
Families in my district who rely on Federal Government programs like
Head Start are hurting. The pain did not start with the shutdown, but
with sequestration which hit Head Start programs for 3 to 4 year olds
in the Houston Area hard: $5,341 million dollar cut, 109 employees cut,
699 slots for children cut.
On October 2, I joined hundreds of Head Start supporters from across
the country and many of my colleagues to protest the closing of Head
Start programs due to the Federal Government shutdown.
I picked up one of the tiny blue chairs that represented the
thousands of Head Start children from around the nation and said that
an empty Head Start chair represents a future doctor, engineer,
president, or teacher who is at risk because of the Federal Government
shutdown.
[[Page H6367]]
My support of Head Start and Early Head Start is based on what I have
seen and heard about programs like the AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start
program serving parents and children in the 18th Congressional
District.
The AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start is a program serving low income
families in my Houston Texas District.
I visited with AVANCE-Houston administrators earlier this month
because I wanted to get an update on how low-income families with
infants and toddlers and pregnant women served by the program were
doing.
The AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start's mission is simple. AVANCE-
Houston works for healthy prenatal outcomes for pregnant women, enhance
the development of very young children, and promote healthy family
functioning.
AVANCE-Houston serves nearly 1,800 children city wide. Each of these
families and their children are suffering the effect of the legislative
malpractice of the House majority.
The sequestration has cost Head Start and Early Head Start: AVANCE-
Houston lost $842,518.
The impact to the AVANCE-Houston Head Start employees, teachers and
administrators of the first wave of lost funds were: Furlough days,
hiring freeze, extra workloads, morale level, outsource of custodial
services.
In Houston, Head Start families and their children saw a reduction of
days of operation; increase concerns about loss of services for their
children and Hardy Center closure
AVANCE-Houston absorbed the sequestration reduction in federal funds
by:
Reducing enrollment by 3.3% which ended access to the program for 72
children; Eliminating 11 Early Head Start and 9 Head Start Teachers and
Support staff, and 12 custodial positions; and
AVANCE-Houston facing a Federal Government shutdown now must consider
what it might mean to their future:
Possible loss of services for an already underserved population;
Increased costs of operation-Lease cost, building maintenance,
medical insurance rates, unemployment, and worker's comp;
Maintenance of competitive salaries;
High staff turnover;
Limited dollars for new initiatives/curriculum.
I know many of my colleagues on the other side of aisle speak about
reforming malpractice lawsuit rights of victims, but what the public is
seeing in the legislative malpractice of my colleagues in the majority.
When there are no perceived consequences for bad behavior or harm
caused to another there are no incentives to stop the bad behavior.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is legislative malpractice because it does not
address the earlier cuts to Federal Government employees and programs
caused by sequestration and makes worse an already bad financial
situation for our government's most important assets--Federal workers.
The importance of Federal workers and the critical programs or
services they administer like Head Start in our Congressional Districts
cannot be understated.
The Houston Chronicle reported that due to sequestration it had
already caused Head Start children and their parents pain.
This school year, a parent Marlen Rosas hoped her 3-year-old son,
Hector, would be attending Head Start so that he might learn English.
Her modest hopes for her son were that he would eventually earn the
high school diploma she never had the opportunity to earn.
But when Ms. Rosas went to enroll Hector--even though he met all the
qualifications for the federal Head Start program--Hecter was turned
down.
Ms. Rosas said, ``I'm sad because he wanted to go to school,'' Rosas
said through an interpreter. ``He only speaks Spanish, and that would
be one of the advantages: for him to socialize with those who speak
English, while learning the names of colors and numbers--just to be
learning.
A couple made a contribution of $10 million to open Head Start
Programs in 11 states for 7,000 kids from low-income families could
continue to receive educational services. I commend this couple for
their generosity of heart to assist some of the Head Start Children
impacted by this curl majority led Federal Government shutdown.
The legislative malpractice of representing to the American public
that the Federal Government is comprised of dismembered parts that can
be funded without regard for what one part does or how one agency
contributes to the work of other agencies.
It is like building a car with no regard for what a part does and how
it would function when installed--because the purpose of car is
transportation.
The purpose of the House of Representatives is to fund the Federal
Government--what we are doing will not accomplish the outcome.
Those who control the House of Representatives is making a cruel
tragedy out of the budget process by teasing Federal employees who
watch while the House majority toy with their lives by passing one
funding bill at a time.
Mr. Speaker, the majority should stop playing games with the American
public and pass the clean funding bill from the Senate that would fund
the entire Federal Government including all programs immediately.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution
84, the Head Start for Low-Income Children Act.
Since its inception in 1965, Head Start has served over 30 million
children and their families. The program's purpose has always been to
serve children and pregnant women in centers, family homes, and in
family child care homes in urban, suburban, and rural communities
throughout our nation.
Last year, California Head Start received over $900 million in
federal funding and taught over 111,000 children. In California, there
are almost 23,000 Head Start employees serving children and their
families.
My rural, low-income district relies heavily on the Head Start
Program. Without it, families across the Central Valley would be unable
to ensure proper care and early education of their young children.
Just last week, two of my constituents flew across the country to
appeal to me and my California colleagues on the devastating impacts of
this drawn-out shutdown on the Head Start Program.
After passage, this bill would provide immediate funding for the
nation's Head Start program at the same rate and under the same
conditions as were in effect last year ensuring that Head Start
programs across the country will be able to keep providing education,
health, nutrition and additional services to our 1 million enrolled
children and their families.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my
opposition to H.J. Res. 84, the Head Start for Low-Income Children Act.
While I appreciate the concern for the harmful effects of the shutdown
on Head Start and am deeply troubled by the children cut off from Head
Start services, I am unable to support this funding bill. A far better
approach to undoing the damage caused by this shutdown is to pass a
clean continuing resolution, CR, that funds the entire government.
On the heels of devastating sequester cuts which caused more than
57,000 children to lose their Head Start slots--over 4,000 of whom live
in Texas--this shutdown continues to harm even more of America's most
vulnerable families. Already, thousands of children have been affected
by Head Start program closures and reduced services due to a lack of
federal support from this crisis and thousands more children are at
risk of losing their seats in classrooms as the shutdown continues.
However, this piecemeal approach to funding Head Start fails to
provide America's children with the same support as a fully operational
government through a clean CR. The populations served by Head Start
often rely on many other vital programs that provide critical
assistance to students who are most in need, such as the National
School Lunch Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP), special education programs, and Title I programs, none of which
are included in this funding bill.
The implication of students losing vital classroom time, nutrition,
and instruction is severe and only makes the mission of improving
student achievement and closing achievement gaps that much more
difficult.
I urge my colleagues to immediately pass a clean CR and reopen the
full government so we can put an end to the current political stalemate
and bring the focus back on undoing the harmful effects of the
sequester.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.J. Res 84, Head
Start for Low-Income Children Act. Head Start represents an innovative
idea from a Democratic led Congress that was created for the education
of our smallest citizens who come for poor or low income households.
We know that if these children have an early start in education it
levels the playing field of life and they can have an equal opportunity
to succeed.
Families in my district who rely on Federal Government programs like
Head Start are hurting. The pain did not start with the shutdown, but
with Sequestration which hit Head Start programs for 3 to 4 year olds
in the Houston Area hard: $5,341 million Dollar cut; 109 Employees cut;
699 Slots for children cut.
On October 2, I joined hundreds of Head Start supporters from across
the country and many of my colleagues to protest the closing of Head
Start programs due to the Federal government shutdown.
I picked up one of the tiny blue chairs that represented the
thousands of Head Start children from around the nation and said that
an empty Head Start chair represents a future doctor, engineer,
president, or teacher who is at risk because of the Federal Government
shutdown.
My support of Head Start and Early Head Start is based on what I have
seen and heard
[[Page H6368]]
about programs like the AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start program serving
parents and children in the 18th Congressional District.
The AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start is a program serving low income
families in my Houston Texas District.
I visited with AVANCE-Houston administrators earlier this month
because I wanted to get an update on how low-income families with
infants and toddlers and pregnant women served by the program were
doing.
The AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start's mission is simple. AVANCE-
Houston works for healthy prenatal outcomes for pregnant women, enhance
the development of very young children, and promote healthy family
functioning.
AVANCE-Houston serves nearly 1,800 children city wide. Each of these
families and their children are suffering the effect of the legislative
malpractice of the House majority.
The Sequestration has cost Head Start and Early Head Start: AVANCE-
Houston lost $842,518.
The impact to the AVANCE-Houston Head Start employees, teachers and
administrators of the first wave of lost funds were: furlough days;
Hiring Freeze; Extra workloads; Morale level; Outsource of custodial
services.
In Houston, Head Start families and their children saw a reduction of
days of operation; increase concerns about loss of services for their
children and Hardy Center closure.
AVANCE-Houston absorbed the Sequestration reduction in federal funds
by: Reducing enrollment by 3.3 percent which ended access to the
program for 72 children; Eliminating ii Early Head Start and 9 Head
Start Teachers and Support staff; and 12 custodial positions.
AVANCE-Houston facing a Federal Government shutdown now must consider
what it might mean to their future: Possible loss of services for an
already underserved population; Increased costs of operation-Lease
cost, building maintenance, medical insurance rates, unemployment, and
worker's comp; Maintenance of competitive salaries; High staff
turnover; Limited dollars for new initiatives/curriculum.
I know many of my colleagues on the other side of aisle speak about
reforming malpractice lawsuit rights of victims, but what the public is
seeing in the legislative malpractice of my colleagues in the majority.
When there are no perceived consequences for bad behavior or harm
caused to another there are no incentives to stop the bad behavior.
Mr. Speaker this bill is legislative malpractice because it does not
address the earlier cuts to Federal government employees and programs
caused by Sequestration and makes worse an already bad financial
situation for our government's most important assets--Federal workers.
The importance of Federal workers and the critical programs or
services they administer like Head Start in our Congressional Districts
cannot be understated.
The Houston Chronicle reported that due to sequestration had already
caused Head Start children and their parents pain: This school year, a
parent Marlen Rosas hoped her 3-year-old son, Hector, would be
attending Head Start so that he might learn English; Her modest hopes
for her son were that he would eventually earn the high school diploma
she never had the opportunity to earn; But when Ms. Rosas went to
enroll Hector--even though he met all the qualifications for the
federal Head Start program--Hecter was turned down; Ms. Rosas said,
``I'm sad because he wanted to go to school,'' Rosas said through an
interpreter. ``He only speaks Spanish, and that would be one of the
advantages: for him to socialize with those who speak English, while
learning the names of colors and numbers--just to be learning.
A couple made a contribution of $10 million to open Head Start
Programs in 11 states for 7,000 kids from low-income families could
continue to receive educational services. I commend this couple for
their generosity of heart to assist some of the Head Start Children
impacted by this curl majority led Federal Government Shutdown.
The legislative malpractice of representing to the American public
that the Federal government is comprised of dismembered parts that can
be funded without regard for what one part does or how one agency
contributes to the work of other agencies.
It is like building a car with no regard for what a part does and how
it would function when installed--because the purpose of car is
transportation.
The purpose of the House of Representatives is to fund the federal
government--what we are doing will not accomplish the outcome.
Those who control the House of Representatives is making a cruel
tragedy out of the budget process by teasing federal employees who
watch while the House majority toy with their lives by passing one
funding bill at a time.
Mr. Speaker, the majority should stop playing games with the American
public and pass the clean funding bill from the Senate that would fund
the entire Federal government including all programs immediately.
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.
Motion to Recommit
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the joint
resolution?
Mrs. CAPPS. Yes, I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Capps moves to recommit the joint resolution H.J. Res.
84 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.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on
the gentlelady's motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to speak on this topic.
I worked for decades in our Nation's public schools as a school
nurse, and I saw firsthand in my community the tremendous effects that
Head Start programs have for so many of our most vulnerable children.
No one is a stronger supporter of this program, but today is really
not about the children of Head Start or their families. Today is about
ending the childish behavior of those of the Republican leadership, who
continue to stand in the way of reopening our government.
Let me be clear: we are here today because one faction of one party
in one House of Congress has shut down the United States Government
because they don't like one law--the Affordable Care Act. This is a law
that was passed by this Congress; it was affirmed by the Supreme Court;
and it was a focal point of the last election in which the candidate
for president who supported the law won.
But none of this matters to our Republican colleagues. Instead, they
have let their obsession with repealing the Affordable Care Act bring
our entire Federal Government to a screeching halt.
Mr. Speaker, this piecemeal approach pushed by my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to reopen certain parts of the government is
merely a facade. It is a ``gimmick,'' as my colleague referred to it,
giving the illusion that they are trying to fix the problem, but they
are not.
Instead, we find ourselves here picking and choosing and waiting for
them to decide whose lucky day it is to be funded by the Republican
leadership. This is not the way to run a great Nation.
Even if we reopen Head Start programs, what about the millions of
other students that benefit from programs administered by the
Department of Education? What about the families who cannot get their
childcare vouchers? What about the job-training programs to help the
unemployed parents get back on their feet? How long do they have to
wait, Mr. Speaker, until we get around to funding their programs? When
is their lucky day?
We cannot continue government funding by picking programs out of a
hat. If the House leadership really wanted to fix the problem, they
could do so today if they would just bring a clean continuing
resolution to the House floor for a straight up or down vote.
At least 25 of our Republican colleagues have publicly supported a
vote for a clean continuing resolution. That
[[Page H6369]]
is enough votes to end the shutdown today--we know it, the Speaker
knows it, and the American people know it--but we are still waiting.
Now, let me say it again: This government shutdown does not have to
continue. We can end it right now.
My amendment today is the ninth time that Democrats have provided a
solution to end the government shutdown. It is the only way to get a
vote on the clean negotiated continuing resolution today.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take this
opportunity to stop wasting time. We must reopen the government, and we
must get back to our work, which is to rebuild our economy, to support
our veterans, to pass a farm bill, and to address the many other
challenges that this great Nation of ours faces. To do so, we need to
stop playing these games.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues, including my many Republican
colleagues who have called for a vote on a clean CR, to join me today
and to end this charade. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion.
Point of Order
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the
instructions contained in the motion violate clause 7 of rule XVI which
requires that an amendment be germane to the bill under consideration.
As the Chair recently ruled on October 2, 3, 4, and 7, 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.
Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, doesn't the bill before us fund only a
portion of the Federal Government?
My motion to recommit would open up the entire Federal Government so
that all of our education programs are there for all of our children
and families. Can the Chair explain, please, why it is not germane to
open all of the Nation's education programs?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Kentucky makes a point of order that the
instructions proposed in the motion to recommit offered by the
gentlewoman from California are not germane.
The joint resolution extends funding relating to Head Start. The
instructions in the motion propose an order of business of the House.
As the Chair ruled on October 2, October 3, October 4, and October 7,
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.
Therefore, the instructions propose a non-germane amendment. The
point of order is sustained.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. 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. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. 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. CAPPS. Mr. 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 226,
nays 191, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 529]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--191
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
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
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Clay
Gallego
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Honda
Lucas
McCarthy (NY)
Richmond
Rogers (AL)
Rush
Thompson (MS)
Visclosky
Whitfield
Young (FL)
[[Page H6370]]
{time} 1349
Messrs. CAPUANO and SMITH of Washington changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. YODER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
Recorded Vote
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248,
noes 168, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 530]
AYES--248
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)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
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
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
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)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--168
Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Horsford
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
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
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Clay
Gallego
Gutierrez
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Honda
Johnson (GA)
Lucas
McCarthy (NY)
Richmond
Rogers (AL)
Rush
Thompson (MS)
Visclosky
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1356
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.
personal explanation
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 529--Motion to Table Ruling
of the Chair; and 530--Passage of H.J. Res. 84, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
____________________