[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 8, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6389-H6397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1815
DEFICIT REDUCTION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH WORKING GROUP ACT OF 2013
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 373, I call
up the bill (H.R. 3273) to establish a bicameral working group on
deficit reduction and economic growth, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 373, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3273
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Deficit Reduction and
Economic Growth Working Group Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. BICAMERAL WORKING GROUP ON DEFICIT REDUCTION AND
ECONOMIC GROWTH.
(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a bicameral
working group to be known as the ``Bicameral Working Group on
Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth'' (hereinafter referred
to as the ``working group'').
(b) Purpose.--The working group shall recommend to the
House of Representatives and the Senate--
(1) overall levels of discretionary spending, including for
the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2014;
(2) changes in the statutory limit on the public debt; and
(3) reforms in direct spending programs.
(c) Membership.--
(1) The working group shall be comprised of 20 members to
be appointed as follows:
(A) The Speaker shall appoint 10 Members of the House of
Representatives, of which one shall be designated as House
co-chair and 4 shall be on the recommendation of the minority
leader of the House of Representatives.
(B) The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint 10
Senators, of which one shall be designated as Senate co-chair
and 4 shall be on the recommendation of the minority leader
of the Senate.
(2) Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the working
group shall be filled in the same manner as the original
designation was made.
(3) Each appointment under this subsection shall be made
not later than one calendar day after enactment of this Act.
(d) Meetings.--The members of the working group shall meet
not later than one calendar day after their appointment
pursuant to subsection (c) and shall meet on each calendar
day thereafter unless both co-chairs jointly determine that
there is good cause to dispense with such meeting.
(e) Adoption of Recommendations.--The working group may not
report any recommendation unless it receives the support of a
majority of the members appointed by both the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the majority leader of the
Senate.
(f) Report.--
(1) The working group shall report its recommendations,
including any legislative language required to implement
those recommendations, to the House of Representatives and
the Senate within 3 calendar days after their adoption.
(2) The report shall be referred in the House of
Representatives by the Speaker in accordance with clause 2 of
rule XIV.
(3) The report shall include any supplemental, minority, or
additional views submitted to the co-chairs prior to its
transmission pursuant to paragraph (1).
(g) Termination.--The working group shall terminate
immediately after transmission of the report under subsection
(f).
(h) Rulemaking.--The provisions of this section are enacted
by Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such
they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House,
respectively, or of that House to which they specifically
apply, and such rules shall supercede other rules only to the
extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such
House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.
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 Rules.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members may have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous materials on H.R. 3273.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It has been 1 week since the Federal Government shut down. In that
time, House Republicans have passed several appropriations bills
designed to provide funding for numerous parts of the government's most
important functions. Additionally, we've invited Senate Democrats to
join us at the negotiating table to find a commonsense solution to our
Nation's fiscal problems.
Unfortunately, no one over these 3 weeks has been able to reach a
compromise, and Senate Democrats have simply returned our volley every
time without a value-added proposition. So what we are here to do today
is to stand up once again and say we believe we are trying to
appropriately fund the Federal Government.
As a result, we are here today. House Republicans are going to offer
to sit down at the negotiation table with Senate Democrats in an effort
to reach the meaningful solutions our constituents expect from us.
H.R. 3273, the Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working Group
Act of 2013, would establish a bicameral, bipartisan working group
consisting of six Members of the majority and four Members of the
minority from both the House and the Senate. These 20 Members would be
appointed no less than 1 day after enactment of the legislation and
would meet each subsequent calendar day to provide recommendations to
overall discretionary spending levels for fiscal year 2014, changes to
the discretionary debt limit, and reforms to direct spending programs.
Mr. Speaker, being from Texas, I am used to a lot of people trying to
work for the good--the common good--of its people. I will tell you that
I fully expect that the reason I came to Washington was to work for the
good and not for just the people of Texas, but to accept the
responsibility. It was important that I come to work for all people in
Texas and the American people to make their lives better. I believe
that some of those ideas include sitting down, talking, negotiating,
finding common ground, leading--not obstructing, not saying ``no,'' not
being the
[[Page H6390]]
first one to walk out or not agreeing to meet, but, rather, to sit down
and be constructive.
That is what we in the House of Representatives are trying to do once
again today with a common set of principles. We believe
constitutionally, as the House of Representatives, we have the
authority and the responsibility to be leaders in the process that will
allow the American people to effectively see who is here, who is
working, and expect us to get our job done. Unfortunately, it's a rough
world, and we're having a tough time, so a new idea today is to gather
our colleagues together from each side and see if we can make progress.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I thank the gentleman, my good friend from Texas, who yielded the
time.
I rise today obviously in strong opposition to this measure. I would
say to my friend, I just heard him just a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, say
that the people from Texas sent him here to do things. Well, the people
from Florida sent me here to do things just like him. There are 435
Members in this institution, in addition to delegates from around our
territories, and each one of them has an unequivocal and clear
understanding about how to go about budgeting in this particular
matter.
Forming a working group is forming another group up above that group.
I don't need that, and I don't believe he needs that. I don't need it.
Evidently, we haven't done very well when we've had it. From the
newspapers today, I gathered that we had a Simpson-Bowles Commission,
which people forget was the legacy of the 2010 debt ceiling increase.
We had the Domenici-Rivlin commission. We had the Cantor-Biden talks.
We had the Obama-Boehner debt ceiling negotiation, the Gang of Six
talks, the supercommittee, and then the Obama-Boehner fiscal cliff
talks. Not one of them worked, and this mess isn't going to work
either.
It's sort of like, Mr. Speaker, moving the hostages, since they're
taking them one by one here with this rifle-shot approach to
legislating, when, in fact, all they have to do is put a clean CR on
the floor and we could pass it, and they know that. But basically what
they're doing is saying, Okay, we're going to take some hostages over
here; then we're going to put them in another room with some more
people so that they can talk to them.
I said in the Rules Committee, and I repeat: this is a gimmick
wrapped in a con inside a scam, and nothing tells me anything different
about my friends across the aisle who've offered gimmick after gimmick
instead of doing what they know is right.
We can open the government, and that's easy to do. We can put
Americans back to work, and that's easy to do. We can keep our country
from defaulting on its obligations. This measure will do none of those
things, not one of them.
In all that talk about the President, the President made it very
clear today that he's willing to negotiate. Evidently--and I picked up
on this--my friends on the other side must have poll-tested
conversation. Well, conversation allows, among other things, that you
have an exploratory understanding with people in an informal setting.
What have we been talking about around here for 2 years? We've been
talking about this mess. This didn't just come up last night or the day
before yesterday. Democrats have already offered seven times to take up
the Senate-passed continuing resolution. The House GOP has blocked a
vote on the measure each and every time. For 6 months, we've been
asking these people to conference.
To the House Republican leadership I say, Mr. Speaker, let us vote on
a clean CR. Let us raise the debt ceiling. Why prolong this shutdown
when you know that the votes are here in the House of Representatives?
My friends across the aisle know they've made a mistake. The
goalposts have not only moved; they have vanished completely from the
field. First, they want to defund ObamaCare. Then they only want to
delay ObamaCare. Then when that didn't work, they said, well, we don't
want to shut the government down, so let's open it up piece by piece.
Evidently, that isn't working either, so they're now down here, moaning
and groaning about the fact that the Senate isn't going to take up
something that's foolish because they've made it clear that they want
this to be a measure that's not a part of any negotiations or
conversation; and the President made it clear that he will converse
with anybody about anything but not with a gun at his head and not with
the kind of undertaking that you are going forward here.
So now it's a working group, another supercommittee. How did that
work out for you the last time, I ask my friends, if you would, Mr.
Speaker?
So tell me, where does it all end? In all seriousness, what do my
friends across the aisle hope to achieve?
Speaker Boehner has said: ``My goal here is to have a serious
conversation''--he said it 27 times ``conversation'' on Sunday; I was
looking at him when he said it--``about those things that are driving
the deficit and driving the debt up, and the President's refusal to sit
down and have a conversation about this is putting our Nation at risk
of default.''
At 11:38 today, the President's office issued a statement wherein
they had a conversation today with John Boehner, in essence, telling
him virtually that we can do this with a clean CR.
What have we been talking about? Why are we even here? What are we
talking about now? Are we having a conversation, or are we just talking
past each other here in the House of Representatives? Republicans have
shut down the Federal Government and taken us to the brink of a global
economic catastrophe because, evidently, they want to have a
conversation that we are already in the middle of.
Guess what? The Senate CR is at the levels you wanted--$986 billion.
That's what they voted on. Sequestration is the law, as my friend from
Georgia is fond of saying, ``the law of the land.'' You've already
gotten what you wanted. Let's just vote on a clean CR. Let us raise the
debt ceiling. This shutdown and looming debt ceiling breach are
failures of the majority's leadership to stand up against the
extremists within their own party, elected on a platform of
obstructionism that borders on insurrection.
Leaders, you say on the other side, must be strong. Leaders must be
courageous. This has become not a democracy that was intended by
Jefferson and Madison and Adams and all of those that were our
Founders, the Franklins and the Washingtons. They founded a democracy
in spite of their divisions. They did not want to have mobocracy.
That's what you've allowed to stand up in your part of this
institution, a mob.
Mr. Speaker, let us end these games with a strong bipartisan message.
We can show the rest of the world that the United States is ready to
end its political brinksmanship.
When I was a child and I would speak out of turn, my dad and my
grandmother would say: Sit down and shut up. We don't need a shutdown.
We don't need people being shut out. What we need to do is shut up and
let the American people cause us to listen to them and go about the
business of bringing a clean CR down here. That's what I'm hearing from
the American people, both Republican and Democrat, liberal and
conservative, that they want us to sit down and shut up and open up
this government with a clean CR.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party hears the gentleman. We are also
listening to the American people. The American people are sick and
worried about their future. They see a government that spends too much
money and listens too little. They tax too much and leave too little
for the American people. They are very aware that this Big Government
ploy and play by not just this administration, but the prior
administration that ran this House of Representatives, placed America
in a detrimental position, in a position where we have health care that
is a government-run health care plan, that is causing not just
uncertainty, but unemployment. Republicans got into this whole mess of
the debate with ObamaCare because it got closer and closer and closer
to implementation.
[[Page H6391]]
Let's look at what this bill tactically does. It tactically puts
rules and regulations on business. That means that business arbitrarily
will make decisions literally to cut not only the amount of people that
they have, but the work hours associated with that. Many unions across
the United States are concerned about the loss of the 40-hour workweek
because that's the threshold that Democrats have placed the American
worker in.
So the Republican Party, in listening not just to business, but
workers, made a determination that the closer we got to this
implementation, we were going to continue discussing how bad this was
for not just business, but for individuals.
Then the President came and unilaterally decided he would let
businesses be deferred for a year, but kept the rules and regulations
on individuals. That was done over Fourth of July, just in a tweet that
went out. They weren't even brave enough to put the full announcement
out.
So now the Republicans have focused since the Fourth of July on the
unfairness about how individuals will be expected to apply all of these
laws directly on them as individuals. See, what the American people
understand is, it is almost impossible to fight as an individual
against a big government, against the IRS, and it's the IRS who will be
making sure that the American people follow this tax law.
{time} 1830
That is what the Supreme Court said it is. It is a tax law.
That is where lots of groups around the country continue to speak,
not only clearly, but with effectiveness, about how it is unfair for
the President to give 1,200 waivers and a waiver to certain people who
were included in the bill--business--and now he is going to waive that
but put it off on individuals.
These are small business owners. They are men and women who are not
just our neighbors. They are men and women who produce the goods and
services, who put their name on their businesses, who have their
children become teachers and firefighters and members of our military.
They see where this is harming their ability to have health care. It
is harming their ability to have the opportunity for their small
business to be successful because it is putting them at a disadvantage.
Perhaps worst of all, there are lots of businesses who understand that
this will cost an incredible amount of money, and that is why
businesses will not offer the exact same health care plan that they had
previously--UPS, all the way to Delta Air Lines, and lots of other
companies.
That is why it is very timely--it is very timely--that Republicans
have been doing this all year, but we focused on this directly at the
implementation.
We are here for a good reason. We are trying to now change the
dynamics with a working group. We are trying to say we believe that
some of our colleagues would have a better opportunity to negotiate
with some good ideas. Trust me, there are good ideas that float back
and forth between Republicans and Democrats all the time. We are trying
to say that a successful ``rain dance'' has a lot to do with timing.
That success can be accepting this working group, getting our Members
together on a bipartisan basis--House and Senate--immediately within a
day or so, and then start working together. Do you know what? Even if
they weren't the final answer, what a great opportunity to empower our
Members to talk and work together and see if they can make headway.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to
tell both sides how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 12\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 11\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the Speaker.
At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
New York, Mrs. Nita Lowey, my good friend and an appropriator supreme.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, a quick review of the facts makes clear that
Republicans are revising history when they claim Democrats refuse to
negotiate.
A headline yesterday from National Journal sums it up:
Nineteen Times Democrats Tried to Negotiate With
Republicans: The GOP's biggest talking point of the shutdown
is only true if you ignore everything that has happened
before last weekend.
House Republicans' failure to negotiate includes: their leadership
walking out of negotiations last December; ignoring the President's $4
trillion deficit reduction plan; refusing for months to negotiate on
the budget with the Senate; and now denying the House a vote to end the
shutdown after Democrats agreed to their spending levels.
Of course we will work with you, my friends, on honest efforts.
President Obama signed a bipartisan $2.5 trillion deficit reduction
law, and the deficit today is half of what it was in 2009. We are
willing partners who will compromise.
But to suggest that we need a special committee to tell us what we
already know is just not sincere. This bill is an attempt to shift
blame for this shutdown. Speaker Boehner should stop trying to find
somebody else to do his job. He can end the shutdown today by allowing
a vote on the Republican-written and Senate-passed CR, which would get
a majority vote in the House and be signed by the President.
Reopen the government. Do not jeopardize the full faith and credit of
the United States. Stop wasting time on political stunts like this bill
while Americans suffer. Vote ``no.''
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would thankfully acknowledge the floor of the House of
Representatives here for voting on several very, very important items
that allow those employees that today might not be at work. We have
asked that they come back to work, and it was passed here--those in
food and drug security, those in Head Start, those in national
emergency disaster recovery, those in the NIH, and those in national
parks.
These are an example of the ideas that have come forth from votes on
this floor. And soon to come--intelligence, border security, Native
Americans, and Alaskan health care, national weather monitoring,
nuclear weapons security, and nutrition assistance for women and
children.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I put to you most sincerely:
Do you not feel that by cherry-picking what it is that you want to do
with these rifle shots, that it is causing a morale problem in the rest
of the government?
Let's assume that you have 150 that you are going to do, and the
group that would be going back to work the latest would be sometime the
week after next or sometime 2 weeks from there.
Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman for
asking. My dear friend, very respectfully, has asked a good question.
As a matter of fact, we would like to move forward with all 150 as
quickly as possible. What we would like to do is move through these.
We've got them now. They are lined up to go to our colleagues on the
other side of the Capitol. But they don't want to do that.
Why would I move forward if they don't want to do that? Why would we
move forward if they do not actually really want to open up the
government except under their terms?
We believe that they have not addressed the underlying problems:
Number one, what is happening with this thing called ObamaCare, and
secondly, with the debt? We are adding debt as we speak. We have gone
from $9- to $17 trillion in just a few short years.
We have been working with the President. We have been doing things in
the 3 years that Republicans have been back in the majority. We are
trying to correct the errors of the past. That is why we are here
today.
The gentleman asked a good question: Wouldn't it be a good thing to
get through our list of 150? I would say to the gentleman, we have
already done some and we will keep doing them.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. In the vernacular, they just say ``bring
it.'' Put all 150 of them down here and we would have a clean CR.
[[Page H6392]]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), one of the most distinguished Members that
has served in the House of Representatives, my good friend, the
minority whip of my party, who may very well answer that question that
I asked about morale.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman pointed out, the morale is low for
approximately 315 million people who call America home; low because
they see a dysfunctional board of directors of their country; low
because they are anguished about the inability to come to grips with
reality.
I want to tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Rules
Committee, we said ``yes.'' You sent us a bill to the United States
Senate, which we control, and you said, Let us open government, and we
will open it on the condition that we cap spending at $986 billion.
Now, you also put another piece on that bill which said we ought to
defund ObamaCare--the Affordable Care Act, as we call it. I venture to
say that close to 90, maybe even 100 percent, on your side of the
aisle, Mr. Chairman--I say to him, Mr. Speaker--didn't think that was
going to happen. They said it because they feel strongly, Mr. Speaker,
about that. I understand that. I have strong feelings myself.
Now, the gentleman, my colleague from Maryland, I hope is going to
use the analogy about ``vetoing'' the debt limit because it is a good
one. But I will tell my friend the Senate said ``yes'' and sent it back
here.
We could open the government this evening if only you would accept
what you suggested, if only you would say, ``Yes, you agreed with our
number.''
There was no negotiation, there was no compromise on our side. There
was a saying to you: We want to keep the government open, so yes. Our
Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives and the Senate
said, Mr. Speaker, we will take your number. America needs to know that
we have said ``yes'' to the number that you suggested.
I don't like your number. I think it is not good for America, Mr.
Speaker. I think it is not good for our national security, for our
economy, or for the morale of the American people long term.
Having said that, I want government open, so we have said ``yes'' to
your number. We didn't negotiate. We said, ``We will take what you
propose.''
Mr. Speaker, I hope every American understands that when one side
says, ``We'll take your number,'' that there ought to be an agreement.
Now, I rise in opposition to this bill that has been put on the
floor, which is another way to distract from the business at hand--
opening up our government. Eight days from now our government will be
in a position for the first time in history where we won't be able to
pay our bills. The wealthiest Nation on the face of the Earth, the most
creditworthy Nation on the face of the Earth, will be in a position not
that we don't have the resources, not that we don't have the credit to
borrow to make sure that we continue to be able to pay our bills--that
won't be the case. It will be the case that we don't have the authority
to do so because this Congress has not acted.
I tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, who chairs the Rules Committee and
whose father served with such distinction as the head of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. HOYER. The present head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Mr. Comey, says that this sequester and budget number will deeply hurt
law enforcement in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I talked to my colleagues, let's defeat this bill, and
let's move to the business that is real, that will make a difference,
not make a political point. Let us move to doing the business of
America and put the people's government back to work, not pretend that
we are going to do it by some supercommittee. We tried that. It didn't
work very well. I am sorry about that. I urged them to stay in business
and do their job.
I ask my colleagues, defeat this, move to the business of America,
put the people's government back to work.
Mr. Speaker, this House has a responsibility to reopen government.
We can vote on a bill within the hour that would reopen the entire
government--and we know the votes are there to pass it.
Two hundred Democrats are on record that we will vote to reopen the
government, and there are media reports that twenty-five Republicans
will do so as well.
So let's find out: put a bill on the floor to reopen government, and
let the House work its will.
Democrats are also ready to work with republicans to prevent a
default.
Once we end the shutdown and remove the threat of default, Democrats
want to sit down and talk in a bipartisan way--as we have asked to do
for months--and work out a long-term solution to our nation's fiscal
challenges.
But the plan on the floor today won't do that.
It is a pretense, not a substantive action.
It does not reopen government, nor does it ensure America pays its
bills.
And it is not a real mechanism to reach a broader agreement on fiscal
issues.
It does not have a deadline for action--nor does it require a vote on
any recommendations the committee would produce.
And, it is not a balanced approach, as it precludes the consideration
of any new revenue whatsoever.
This is just more of the same from the Tea Party-driven Republican
conference that isn't serious about reducing the deficit in a balanced
and sustainable way.
Instead of wasting more time on these reckless and irresponsible
gimmicks, we ought to be taking responsible steps to end the shutdown,
prevent a default, and then work together to achieve real, long-term
fiscal solutions.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As the gentleman knows, there are few people in this House who I have
a better relationship than I do with the gentleman from Maryland. With
great respect, I listened to him and his words.
I would say back to him there is a little bit more that really comes
to us from people who speak about their lives also. I am concerned
about people who are not only working for our great government and
people who receive services, but we are also trying--without to make a
point--we are trying to make changes in the Affordable Care Act, which
is also known as ObamaCare.
{time} 1845
There are several things about the Affordable Care Act that render
that title difficult to understand, because the Affordable Care Act,
within a year the Congressional Budget Office said they believed it
would be at least twice as expensive as it was originally thought it
would be.
Secondly, some 70 percent more people will be in the system because
they provided a figure that did not match what they expect now for
people to be in it from people who moved off of their worker plans,
their insurance plans.
Third, the President stood right here one State of the Union and said
there won't be a dime of taxpayer money.
And lastly, the President of the United States said:
And if you like your insurance, I guarantee you, you can
keep it.
But, Mr. Speaker, what has happened since then is this administration
was incapable of providing information about how this would work. And
even to today, after the announcement was made, people are going onto
the Web site and learning more about these exchanges.
The largest cardiology group in America, cardiologists--heart
doctors--were not even included or asked to be in the exchange. Not
even given a chance to say no, thank you, the largest cardiology group
in America.
So now the American people are looking at it and saying, my doctor's
not even included, so who is included because my doctor is not, and now
I am looking at this plan that is very expensive. Granted, New York
City, the State of New York was less because they had a very expensive
plan, and it's true in some places it is less. But the best doctors or
the doctors that people went to are not even included in those plans
now. As an example, as I said, the largest cardiology group, the most
experienced cardiologists, the ones you want to go to for Medicare, for
Medicaid, and for your health insurance, are not even going to be
included in the government plan.
[[Page H6393]]
So, Mr. Speaker, this is just one example about the disappointment
that the American people have because they were told one thing, and
they're going to get something else. Because you're fighting the
government, we have to do it in such a public way. If we simply
followed the law, and the contract or the express contract did not
equal what came out the other end, you could go to court and sue for
it. But you can't sue the government over this. So we are litigating
this actually, Mr. Speaker, right before your eyes in a very public
way, saying that we believe this health care, known as ObamaCare,
should not be entered into lightly.
We better understand what we're doing, and we're asking for a lot of
changes. Those changes are: we think we ought to delay it; we think we
ought to defer it; we think we ought to wait on it. We have, in
essence, backed up every single time from our demand, and now we've
gotten to a point where we, as Republicans in our discussion through
legislation with the Senate, have now gotten to the point where we've
said, We are where we're going to be. Now we're going to try and open
up the government and we're going to try and make it work. That's the
facts of the case, and that's just the way it is.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thought we were here about
the working group, but it does come out in the wash: we really are here
about ObamaCare.
I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida. As the
gentleman said, we discovered right now that the government is still
shut down because our Republican colleagues want to repeal the
Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, when in fact we could open the
government right now by passing the bill that's in our possession.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about negotiation because
the President and the Democrats in Congress have been trying to have a
budget negotiation with our Republican colleagues all year long. In
fact, in March, the House passed its budget, and in March, the Senate
passed its budget. And just like the textbook says, you're then
supposed to have a negotiation between the House and the Senate to
negotiate your differences to reach a compromise. What happened? The
Speaker of the House refused to appoint negotiators from the House. We
tried three times to get a vote; each time the Speaker said ``no.''
In the United States Senate, on 18 occasions, in fact 19 now, the
Democratic leader and Senator Murray tried to get consent to have a
budget negotiation between the House and Senate. On 18 occasions,
Senate Republicans said ``no.'' They didn't want to talk. They didn't
want to negotiate. So the clock ticked until we got down to government
shutdown. And then what happened?
The Speaker of the House and the Senate Democratic leader had a
negotiation. On Sunday on national television, the Speaker of the House
told the country that he had a negotiation with Senator Reid. They had
gotten a deal. But guess what? The Speaker reneged on the agreement.
Why? He told us that, too. He couldn't sell it to a reckless faction of
his own party. He wanted to allow that faction of the party to run the
country and shut down the government.
Now what are our Republican colleagues saying? That they're not going
to let us pay our bills on time unless we adopt the Republican budget
agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleagues--and I think this is an
important question for the country--if the President of the United
States said that he would veto a debt ceiling bill, that he would veto
legislation to pay the country's bills on time unless Republicans
adopted the President's budget and the President's agenda, our
Republican colleagues would say he'd lost his mind. Our Republican
colleagues would probably start impeachment proceedings. And yet,
that's exactly what they're doing. They're saying that they won't take
responsibility in joining us to pay our country's bills on time unless
we adopt the Republican budget agenda unless we say let's get rid of
the Affordable Care Act, unless we do everything their way.
Again, if the President was to take that position, you would say he
was off his rocker. So now, our Republican colleagues are coming up
with a fake committee where it actually sets the rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman.
So after all this refusal to negotiate, you now want to set up a fake
committee on deficit reduction where you refuse to even include the
idea of reducing the deficit in part by shutting down tax breaks for
big oil companies because you don't want to use one penny of revenue,
even from closing tax loopholes, to reduce the debt and deficit. I hear
from my colleagues how important it is to reduce the debt--and it
absolutely is--but apparently it's not important enough to shut down
one tax loophole for special interests.
End this sham. Vote on the Senate bill. Open the government.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is some truth to this. I and the
Speaker and the majority leader and the whip and our conference do not
want to have anything that would empower somebody to raise taxes. But
we did want to empower that we would allow maybe Mr. Dingell, the Dean
of the House, maybe Mr. Van Hollen, maybe Mr. Hastings, to be part of a
committee, a working group that would sit down with their colleagues
and speak honestly--and maybe Mrs. Lowey--speak honestly about how we
get out of this mess that we all have.
And as a working group, as a working group with no dictates but how
you've got to do what you're going to do, no timeframe except you have
to go meet, and you've got to be successful, and it's going to be about
these items. In other words, make ``the big deal'' the big deal. And
the big deal right now is spending, debt, and how we do something to
get this government back to work. That's what I think the legislation
does.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\3/
4\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Well, for a week now, the Republicans said no to a CR
funding the entire government unless there was defunding of health care
reform. That was the bludgeon. It did not work.
So the Republicans shut down the government. It turns out that tactic
was in the works for a year, as described in The New York Times
yesterday:
One morning in a location the Members insist on keeping
secret, came a little-noticed ``blueprint to defund
ObamaCare'' signed by leaders of more than three dozen
conservative groups. It articulated a take-no-prisoners
legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative
circles: that Republicans could derail the health care
overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push
fellow Republicans--including their cautious leaders--into
cutting off financing for the entire government.
So now we have a shift. Keep the government shut down, let government
not pay its bills. Why? Because the Speaker said it would be
``unconditional surrender.'' That isn't what's needed. We don't need
another supercommittee. What we need is to be allowed to vote.
This poster shows 195 Democrats willing to reopen the government; 22
Republicans on record. That's a majority of the House. Mr. Speaker, let
democracy prevail. Let us vote.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 1\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the balance of my time to my good
friend, the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this debate is a bizarre
experience for those of us who have been urging negotiation on the
budget for a year. ``Take the President up on his
[[Page H6394]]
overture of last December,'' we've said to our Republican friends.
``Let's go to a conference with the Senate and work out a budget.'' But
the Republicans have steadfastly refused. They have run out the clock.
And why did they do that? So that in a crisis atmosphere, they could
demand a ransom for doing our basic duty--keeping the government open
and paying our bills.
Well, that's extortion, and it's way over the line. We can't do that.
In fact, we need to open the government. We could do it tonight. The
votes are here if the Speaker would simply permit a vote. We could
reopen the government immediately.
I promise you once we do our basic duty, we will be happy immediately
to do what we should have been doing all along, and that is to
negotiate a budget plan, a budget plan that puts everything on the
table: revenues, entitlement, all categories of spending, a budget plan
that secures this country's economic future and ends this charade that
the Republicans have put us through here as the new fiscal year begins.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, we're here because Republicans want us to move forward
with a process that is very important. We've had a number of times that
the gentlewoman, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee,
Mrs. Lowey, we've had the great young chairman from Kentucky, Mr.
Rogers, chairman of Appropriations, come up to the committee and talk
very clearly about their ideas about moving forward to get things done.
{time} 1900
I don't know that they would be the representatives of this body, but
I bet they would be and I bet you that they could make real progress,
along with, perhaps, Mr. Van Hollen and others who are awesome Members
on their side, Members who are committed to getting the work done.
But this is a fight, and it's a fight that goes all the way to our
friends in the Senate and all the way to the President. As best I can
tell you, just as I started, I will end today. I will say that today's
stalemate is the making of the President. This is his making. He places
his own political power, I believe, above the Constitution, wanting to
dictate policies instead of negotiating them with a duly elected branch
of government, and that's the House of Representatives.
I hope that the American people take note of what's happening. The
President is different from his predecessors not in terms of greatness,
but rather to the degree to which he's willing to sacrifice this
Nation's greatness. He's willing to take us to the brink, rather than
offering his negotiating skill-set and getting people together. That is
what we should be about.
The Speaker of the House has literally instructed us to get a working
group together, gather it on a bipartisan basis, and see if we can make
progress not with the President, not with the Speaker, not with the
Senate Majority Leader, but among Members of this body who we know and
who we respect. Let's gather us together, and let's get together, and
let's make a difference. That's what we're trying to suggest today. I
will tell you that my colleagues that have been here on the floor,
including the great minority whip, I believe have the ability to make
this success happen if we will work together. That's what I'm for.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
3273, the so-called ``Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working
Group Act of 2013,'' which establishes another supercommittee to make
recommendations on spending and changes in the statutory limit on the
public debt, the latest gimmick of the Tea Party dominated Republican
majority to extricate themselves from the fiasco they created when they
voted to shut down the government.
The bill before us is a bad idea brought up at the worst possible
time. The bill seeks to recreate the `super-committee' Frankenstein
monster that failed its assigned task and ended up giving us the
Frankenstein monster called sequestration.
We have been there and done that. We are not going down that road
again.
Additionally, this bill is not a genuine effort to reach an agreement
on budget and fiscal priorities. If that were the case, House
Republicans would not have rejected the numerous requests of House and
Senate Democrats over the past six months to go to conference to reach
an agreement.
Let us review the record leading up to the Republican shutdown and
the cost of the recklessness course of action:
$150 million a day--The price-tag for closing down the government In
1995, the record three-week closing cost $1.9 billion in today's
dollars.
800,000-plus--Federal employees expected to be furloughed as a result
of the GOP's irresponsible shutdown.
192--The number of days House Republicans have refused to negotiate
on a federal budget, setting the stage for a GOP government shutdown.
128--The number of points the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped on
Monday in reaction to the GOP shutdown.
72--Percent of American voters opposed to Congress shutting down the
federal government to block implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
68--Percent of Americans who say shutting down the federal government
even for a few days is a bad thing for the country.
49--Republicans who say shutting down the government over Obamacare
is a big MISTAKE.
45--The number of times GOP have unsuccessfully tried to repeal or
undermine Affordable Care Act.
18--The number of times Senate Republicans have blocked Senate
Democrats' efforts to go to conference and negotiate on the budget to
avoid a government shutdown.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats are and have been willing to negotiate over
honest differences--but not before House Republican vote to open the
government and remove the threat of government default.
And there is an easy and verifiable way for them to demonstrate their
good faith, and that is by bringing to the floor for an immediate vote
on the clean CR already passed by the Senate.
The President has stated repeatedly that he will sign a clean CR. Our
constituents are waiting. It is time to end the madness.
Mr. Speaker, let the House vote on H.J. Res. 59, as passed by the
Senate today.
That is the best way to keep faith with all persons who serve the
American people as employees of the federal government, and those who
depend upon the services they provide.
National Education Association;
Washington, DC, October 8, 2013.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the three million members
of the National Education Association (NEA) and the students
they serve, we urge you to VOTE NO on The Deficit Reduction
and Economic Growth Working Group Act of 2013 (H.R. 3273), a
misguided strategy to ending this political stalemate, and
instead pass a clean Continuing Resolution (CR) immediately.
Votes associated with this issue may be included in the NEA
Legislative Report Card for the 113th Congress.
The shutdown of the federal government has already affected
countless children, working families, and seniors across the
country; the longer this crisis drags on the more pain will
be inflicted upon those who least deserve it. Meanwhile, H.R.
3273 seeks to create a ``working group'' of Senators and
Representatives to discuss FY 2014 funding by attempting to
achieve deficit reduction without accompanying revenue
increases. Students in America's schools are bearing the
brunt of this shutdown every day and require solutions now.
Instead of seeking deficit reduction on the backs of those
students and working families, Congress should take a
responsible, balanced approach that reflects the values that
make our nation strong: investing in people, jobs, and
education as the path to prosperity. By eliminating wasteful
corporate tax breaks and loopholes and ensuring the wealthy
are paying their fair share we can appropriately reduce our
deficit. As just one example, as many as two out of three
U.S. corporations paid zero in federal income taxes over much
of the previous decade, according to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO). The share of federal revenues
coming from corporate taxes has shrunk by two-thirds in the
last 50 years. This is undermining our ability to make the
necessary investments in education that are sorely needed in
order to return our nation to prosperity. It is time to put
politics aside, do what is right for our nation, and take the
balanced approach to deficit reduction widely supported by
voters by calling on corporations and the very wealthy to pay
their fair share.
Meanwhile, the current approach to deficit reduction
without revenue increases has left us with the
indiscriminate, across the board cuts of the sequester. It is
long past time for Congress to reverse course from the
austerity approach that included slashing education across-
the-board by 5 percent this year--the equivalent of cutting
nearly all education programs and Head Start by roughly $3
billion. The level of cuts imposed
[[Page H6395]]
by sequestration have already taken federal funding back to
pre-2004 levels while our nation's schools are serving nearly
6 million more students since that time.
There are millions of children being affected every day
this shutdown continues. That is why we urge you to think of
every single individual when making these funding decisions
to ensure continued debates on Capitol Hill are not hurting
everyday Americans and their families. We urge you to
immediately pass a clean CR to ensure that the most
vulnerable among us are no longer the victims of the
government shutdown and we can focus back on undoing the
harmful effects of the sequester.
Sincerely,
Mary Kusler,
Director, Government Relations.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Deficit Reduction and
Economic Growth Work Group Act of 2013, I note that Sec 2 (b)
implicitly calls for reductions in direct spending programs, but does
not authorize the working group to consider additional revenue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 373, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit
at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. I am opposed.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Brownley of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
3273 to the Committee on Rules with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Strike all after the enacting 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.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment
to H.R. 3273. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final
passage, as amended.
My amendment is a simple, straightforward improvement that I believe
both sides can agree is absolutely necessary, and it is also supported
by the majority of the American people. If my amendment passes, it will
end this reckless and irresponsible government shutdown.
The majority claims that the bill before us right now will force the
House and Senate to negotiate; but as written, this bill will do
nothing of the sort. It will simply prolong the government shutdown. It
will prolong the pain being done to our veterans, to the National Guard
and Reserves, and to women, infants, and children; and, most
importantly, this bill will prolong the pain being inflicted on our
economy.
Let's be clear, this bill is a bill to nowhere. In my view, there is
no one in this room right now who thinks this bill will reopen the
government.
Since April, the Senate has tried 19 times to request a conference
with the House; but each time, the request was blocked by Senate
Republicans.
After months of stalling and preventing a budget conference, I am
amazed that my friends on the other side of the aisle want us to
believe that they are ready to negotiate a budget. We have had months
to produce a budget that the House and Senate could agree on.
If my colleagues truly want to negotiate a budget that will move our
country forward, they must vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
Once we have reopened the government, we can then sit down and work
out a budget for the long term. We can do this in a bipartisan manner,
without our economy sinking, without our constituents being hurt, and
we can do it in a manner that is becoming to this House.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Congress must get its fiscal
house in order, and I believe both sides must come together to find
solutions that better reflect the values of the American people; but
instead of ending the shutdown, we continue to consider bills that play
games.
We cannot open the entire Federal Government one bill at a time. If
we continue down this path, the government will remain closed for the
next 3 months.
How much damage would that do to the economy?
How many veterans would go without their benefits?
How many kids would lose Head Start funding?
How many families would go without nutritional assistance?
We cannot continue to play these games for 3 more months. The
American people and the residents of my great county, Ventura County,
deserve better.
We can end this insanity right now. Reopen the government. Spare the
American people the effects of this shutdown, and then come together to
resolve our differences.
To put bills on the floor that pretend to take care of our Nation's
critical needs, when they do not, is shameful.
I came to Congress to move our country forward, to help the families,
the veterans, the small and large employers in Ventura County, to
create jobs, and to invest in our future. We need to end this shutdown
today.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.
Point of Order
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the amendment
contained in the motion violates clause 7 of rule XVI, commonly
referred to as the germaneness rule.
The objective of the bill under consideration is to establish a
working group on deficit reduction. The amendment proposes to consider
a Senate amendment to a House bill; therefore, the amendment fails the
fundamental purpose test of germaneness described on page 547 of House
Practice:
If the purpose or objective of an amendment is unrelated to that of
the bill to which it is offered, the amendment may be held not germane.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed in the motion is not
germane to the bill, and I respectfully request a ruling from the
Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I request to be heard on the
point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized on the point of order.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, doesn't the bill before us
set up a commission to examine deficit reduction?
My motion to recommit would open up the entire Federal Government so
that our taxpayers can receive the benefits they have already paid for.
The recommit deals with government expenditures, and right now we are
running a deficit. So isn't the amount the government is spending a
relevant topic to deficit reduction?
Can the Chair explain why it's not germane to open up the entire
Federal Government while we discuss deficit reduction?
Mr. Speaker, if you rule this motion out of order, does that mean we
will not have a chance to keep the entire Federal Government open
today? Can the Chair please explain why we can't keep the entire
Federal Government open today?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Texas makes a point of order that the instructions
proposed in the motion to recommit offered by the gentlewoman from
California are not germane.
As recorded in section 932 of the House Rules and Manual, a general
[[Page H6396]]
principle of germaneness is that an amendment must relate to the
subject matter under consideration.
The instant bill proposes to establish a working group composed of
Members and Senators. As such, it proposes a bicameral order in the
form of a joint rule.
In contrast, the instructions in the motion to recommit provide for
the disposition of an extant legislative measure. As such, it proposes
a special order of business of the House.
By addressing a different exercise in rulemaking than the pending
bill, the instructions propose a non-germane amendment. The point of
order is sustained.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. 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. SESSIONS. 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.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of the bill, if arising without further
proceedings in recommittal; passage of House Joint Resolution 89; and
the question on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 194, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 533]
YEAS--227
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
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
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--194
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
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
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Clay
Gallego
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Lucas
McCarthy (NY)
Rogers (AL)
Rush
Young (FL)
{time} 1933
Ms. JACKSON LEE, Messrs. KEATING, CONYERS, Mrs. CAPPS, Messrs. COHEN
and RYAN of Ohio 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.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 197, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 534]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
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
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
[[Page H6397]]
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
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--197
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
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
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
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
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Rooney
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Clay
Gallego
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Lucas
McCarthy (NY)
Rogers (AL)
Rush
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1940
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________