[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H244-H255]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 3547, SPACE
LAUNCH LIABILITY INDEMNIFICATION EXTENSION ACT; PROVIDING FOR
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 17, 2014, THROUGH JANUARY
24, 2014; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 458 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 458
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
3547) to extend the application of certain space launch
liability provisions through 2014, with the Senate amendments
thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention
of any point of order, a single motion offered by the chair
of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the
House (1) concur in the Senate amendment to the title and (2)
concur in the Senate amendment to the text with an amendment
inserting the text of Rules Committee Print 113-32 in lieu of
the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate. The Senate
amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The
motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of the motion specified in the first
section of this resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 74
shall be considered as adopted.
Sec. 3. The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may
insert in the Congressional Record not later than January 16,
2014, such material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate
amendments and the motion specified in the first section of
this resolution.
Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from
January 17, 2014, through January 24, 2014--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), my colleague and friend, pending which I yield myself
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution,
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for the consideration of H.R. 3547. The rule authorizes
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to offer a motion that
the House concur in the Senate amendment with the House amendment
consisting of the text of the fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations
bill.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Additionally, the rule conforms the title to the content of the bill by
providing for the passage of an enrollment correction after the
adoption of Chairman Rogers' motion.
{time} 1245
Lastly, Madam Speaker, the rule provides floor management tools to be
used during next week's recess.
Madam Speaker, I want to commend my good friends Chairman Rogers and
Ranking Member Lowey for bringing to this House a bipartisan bill that
brings to a close the fiscal year 2014 appropriations process while
maintaining the Republican commitment to fiscal responsibility.
Since Republicans took control of the House, we have cut
discretionary spending 4 years in a row--the first time since the
Korean war. At the same time, this bill provides no new funding for the
Affordable Care Act and also includes a pension fix for medically
retired personnel and survivor benefit plan annuitants. While there is
still work to be done to ensure that we honor the service of our
veterans and military retirees, this is a good, bipartisan first step.
Madam Speaker, I know many of my friends here voted against the Ryan-
Murray compromise budget, and they voted against the fiscal cliff deal
of 2011. However, look at where these pieces of legislation have
brought us. We have cut discretionary spending 4 years in a row, to a
level $164 billion below the fiscal year 2008 level, the last year of
the Bush Presidency. That is a feat to be commended. We have dealt with
tax expenditures, in part, as a portion of the fiscal cliff deal. Yet,
despite this progress, we still have not been able to close over $600
billion of our annual budget deficit.
Madam Speaker, discretionary spending has paid more than its fair
share in dealing with our budget deficit. Entitlements such as Medicare
and Medicaid spending and other mandatory programs must be reformed in
order to put us on a path to a balanced budget.
With the passage of this omnibus, which releases us from the threat
of a government shutdown, we are showing the American people that we
actually are capable of working in a bipartisan manner. I hope in the
future we can work to capitalize on our bipartisan success and bring
America's bloated debt and deficit under control.
Madam Speaker, passing this rule and this omnibus spending bill is
the responsible thing to do. It is the thoughtful thing to do. As
opposed to lurching from crisis to crisis, this omnibus is carefully
crafted over a period of many months. And it sets priorities, controls
spending, and reasserts congressional authority over the appropriations
process far more effectively than yet another continuing resolution
ever could.
Many of our colleagues have not seen regular order in the
appropriations process. And, sadly, until the Senate is able to pass
bills for us to conference together, I think we will be forced into
relying on omnibuses in the future. But this is not a continuing
resolution. The Ryan-Murray agreement gives us a reasonable foundation
for our work in fiscal year 2015.
With that, I urge support of the rule and the underlying bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, what we have before us can be
described--very charitably--as a mixed bag. This is a 1,500-page bill
that nobody has actually read. This is, by the way, two-sided. It came
before the Rules Committee less than 24 hours after it was filed.
Because of this rule and the process used to create the bill, no
Member, Republican or Democrat, will have the opportunity to amend it
or change it in any way.
To top it all off, the legislative vehicle that the Republican
leadership is using to rocket this bill over to the Senate is H.R.
3547, the Space Launch Liability Indemnification Act. No wonder the
American people think Congress is living on another planet.
When people talk about regular order, this ain't it.
But we are where we are. And I do want to thank Chairman Rogers,
Ranking Member Lowey, and the House and Senate appropriators for their
hard work in putting the underlying omnibus appropriations bill
together.
I will support this bill, very reluctantly, because the alternative
is far worse--yet another Republican shutdown of the government, yet
another unnecessary economically devastating and politically motivated
mess, yet another attempt by congressional Republicans to damage an
economy still
[[Page H245]]
struggling to recover from the worst recession in our lifetimes.
So, yes, I will vote for the bill, but we need to curb our
enthusiasm. The numbers in this bill are awful. They may be slightly
less awful than the Republican sequester numbers, but they are still
awful.
Fewer kids will be cut from Head Start, but we are nowhere near
meeting our educational needs. More funds will be provided for critical
medical research, but not enough. There will be more funding for LIHEAP
for our cities and towns and for antihunger programs. While it begins
to undo the sequester, it does so for only 2 years. We need to get rid
of it forever--permanently.
With this bill, we are waist-deep instead of neck-deep in manure.
Hooray, I guess.
Even so, I am sure that many Tea Party members of this House will
vote against this bill today because they still think it spends too
much. All of the right-wing outside groups who really call the shots
around here are whipping hard against it.
But more importantly, Madam Speaker, what is missing from this bill
or from the Republican leadership's agenda is any acknowledgment of the
immediate problem of millions of people who are losing their long-term
unemployment benefits.
On December 28, 1.3 million unemployed Americans saw their long-term
unemployment insurance expire, including more than 58,000 in
Massachusetts. Since then, unemployment insurance has expired for an
additional 72,000 more Americans each week. Yet the Republicans
continue to do nothing.
Let me remind my colleagues how we got here.
After a difficult economic period in the early nineties and prolonged
budget fights, President Clinton left us with a budget surplus, a
surplus that was then squandered through unpaid-for wars and reckless
tax cuts championed by President Bush and the Republican Congress. The
Clinton surplus turned into a then-record deficit that was exacerbated
by the global recession that started at the end of the Bush
administration.
Six years after President Bush left office, we still have an
unacceptable level of unemployment and an economy that is getting
better for some while, at the same time, leaving many behind. And that
is where unemployment insurance comes in.
This program is a lifeline for millions of people who lost their
jobs--for most, because of the recession and not because of any issues
regarding job performance. Unemployment insurance helps millions of
families pay their bills and put food on their tables, things they
could do if they had jobs, but they can't because they are unemployed.
Yet Republicans in the Senate continue to filibuster a bill to extend
unemployment insurance, and the House Republican leadership refuses
even to consider any bill. We can't even get a bill on this floor so
that Members of both sides of the aisle can have a chance to express
their views. It is shameful, it is unconscionable, and it hurts our
economic growth.
Madam Speaker, this isn't about some abstract piece of Federal
policy. This is about the lives of our own citizens. It is about our
neighbors who are simply trying to get by. It is about people who are
willing to work but need help until they find a new job. They deserve a
hell of a lot better than they are getting from this Congress.
Madam Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule
that will allow the House to hold a vote on a clean, 3-month
unemployment insurance extension. This has been introduced by my
colleague from Massachusetts, Congressman Tierney. If Congress doesn't
act, over 18 million Americans will be denied the vital relief that
they so greatly depend upon.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will again, before this debate is
over, remind my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous
question.
Let me just close, again, by saying we need to move this process
forward. I expect that that is what this omnibus will do. But we are
about to leave for a break, starting tomorrow, one of the many breaks
that the Republican leadership constantly gives us. So we are going to
leave town, and meanwhile all these millions of Americans who are
depending on us to help them get through this difficult time are just
going to be left alone. We are going to turn our backs on them. That
is, to me, unconscionable.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with us and
defeat the previous question so we can deal with this issue of
unemployment insurance.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond to
my friend.
I want to thank my friend for his support of what is a bipartisan
bill, a bill for which the President of the United States also issued a
statement of support. We appreciate that. I would suggest that we are
actually doing what my friend quite often suggested we do--work in a
bipartisan manner and arrive at a common solution.
I would add one thing to my friend's description of the 1990s. We
ought to give a little bit of credit to the Republican majority who
actually voted for those agreements--when most Democrats did not--that
balanced the budget, and particularly Speaker Gingrich, because, with
all due respect to President Clinton, he never once submitted a
balanced budget.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop), my good friend, a colleague from the Rules Committee and
a classmate.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy
with Agriculture Committee Chairman Lucas of Oklahoma and Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Calvert of California regarding
the issue of Federal land ownership and Payments in Lieu of Taxes,
commonly known as PILT.
PILT is a program for counties all across America that have federally
owned lands within their boundaries. Counties in every State, except
Rhode Island, benefit from this program first established in 1979. PILT
helps to offset the loss of property tax revenues caused by the
presence of Federal land. The Federal Government is the largest
landowner in the United States, and PILT fulfills the Federal
Government's obligation to local communities where their ownership
presence is the greatest.
One out of every 3 acres in our country is federally owned. As you
can see from the map, most of this land is concentrated in the West.
Counties with Federal land in their jurisdictions are denied property
tax revenues typical of communities with privately owned land. The
diminished tax base hinders rural communities from fulfilling some of
their most basic functions, such as education and public safety.
PILT's previous funding has expired, and now we are in a situation
where we have to find a new source. We were pleased yesterday when the
Speaker and majority leader pledged their support to the Western Caucus
that qualified counties would receive 2014 funding.
Subcommittee Chairman Calvert, as we continue to work on 2014 funding
matters, it seems apparent that funding for PILT will be included in
another important legislative vehicle in the future. Is that your
understanding?
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. The gentleman is correct. PILT has been a mandatory
program under the jurisdiction of authorizing committees since fiscal
year 2008. Fiscal year 2007 was the last year that PILT was funded with
discretionary funds. In fact, funding for PILT last year was provided
within the MAP-21 transportation bill.
Had PILT funding been provided in the Interior division of the
omnibus, the committee would not have been able to adequately address
other critical issues important to the western Members.
[[Page H246]]
PILT is very important to my own State of California, which is the
largest recipient of PILT payments, with over $41 million received in
fiscal year 2013. Like my good friend, I am absolutely committed to
securing PILT funding for our counties in fiscal year 2014.
It is my understanding that Chairman Lucas has agreed to carry PILT
funding in the farm bill in the conference report.
Chairman Lucas, do you concur?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. I yield my friend an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LUCAS. Yes, Mr. Calvert, I do. I have already had a conversation
with Chairwoman Stabenow, who is a strong supporter of PILT funding, as
well as Chairman Hastings of the House Natural Resources Committee,
whose committee oversees the program. I also have the backing of House
Republican leadership.
I can assure you both that it is my intention to provide funding for
PILT in the final conference committee agreement on the farm bill. I am
very much aware of the importance of this program for rural communities
across America in providing funding for necessary functions like
police, education, and infrastructure.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss this important issue, and I
look forward to working with you on this in the very near future.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means.
{time} 1300
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Thank you to the gentleman for yielding.
More than 1.5 million long-term unemployed have now been cut off
unemployment insurance with the expiration of the Federal program,
thrown out of work through no fault of their own, and desperately,
desperately looking for a job. They are powerless and, to many in
Washington, they are nameless, only a number.
So those who oppose extending this lifeline of unemployment insurance
can talk about their compassion, but rather than meeting and talking
with Americans searching for work, they are throwing them to the
wolves, whether of hunger, helplessness or even homelessness.
We, I promise everybody, will strive to help change that these next
11 days, as House Republicans recess.
Consider this: when Walmart advertised 600 jobs in D.C., 23,000
people applied. When a dairy plant was reopened in Hagerstown,
Maryland, 1,600 people applied for a few dozen jobs.
This should not be a partisan issue. Republicans are making it such
with their cold shoulder and their stonewall in this House.
It is unconscionable for Republicans to close down this House without
lifting a single finger to help 1.5 million Americans and to prevent a
vote by those of us ready to act. It is unconscionable.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a great Member from
Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), my friend and colleague.
Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Smith and
Chairman Rogers for their work to put this bill together. This is a
product of months of work on the part of our appropriators, under
regular order, to give us the framework for this bill.
I have the pleasure of serving as chairman of the Subcommittee on
Space, as well as being one of the lead sponsors on the underlying
indemnification bill. This is a simple, yet crucial, policy that allows
our space industry to remain globally competitive as they support and
service satellites Americans rely upon every day.
I welcome this 3-year extension, and I also appreciate the
consideration this package has given my NASA reauthorization bill.
The larger package also begins to address issues facing homeowners
across the Nation, not just in coastal areas, by including the Palazzo-
Cassidy-Grimm-Richmond amendment that has received wide bipartisan
support in both the House and the Senate.
This provision halts all FEMA work through the end of this fiscal
year to implement rate increases on some of those homeowners affected
by flood map changes. This provision sets the stage for broader reforms
that we are working towards later this month or the next.
With this bill, we also maintain our commitments to our men and women
in uniform by restoring damaging defense cuts. We address cost-of-
living adjustments for 63,000 medically retired military personnel and
survivors receiving those benefits. I plan to continue working to
address cost-of-living increases for all of our military retirees.
We provide for a well-deserved 1 percent increase in troop pay, and
it also provides funding for homeland security priorities, such as the
seventh and eighth National Security Cutters for the Coast Guard.
Finally, this bill continues the pattern of responsible cuts to
government waste, fraud and abuse. It represents $165 billion in total
discretionary cuts since 2010, and is part of our commitment, as House
Republicans, to continue cutting spending responsibly.
Again, I thank my colleagues for their work on this bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), who is the ranking member of the Financial
Services Committee.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, while this agreement is an improvement
over the harmful sequester, it fails to adequately fund Wall Street's
cops, shortchanges many housing programs, and ignores the global
economy.
While the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission need more resources to oversee Wall Street,
this bill only provides flat funding to the already-underfunded SEC and
a nominal bump for the CFTC. Yes, no furloughs, but no new examiners
either.
Regarding housing, the bill offers minimal increases for section 8
vouchers and the Community Development Block Grant program but not
enough for Americans struggling with long-term unemployment and
foreclosure.
Finally, Republican isolationists have excluded the International
Monetary Fund reform package. Democrats and businesses agree a well-
equipped IMF that leverages billions of global dollars is in our
national interest.
Despite these concerns, we must pass this bill. Reluctantly, I
support this bill. We have to stop the sequester and prevent another
government shutdown.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Swalwell) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend
unemployment benefits that protect 238,855, and counting, workers in my
home State of California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is advised that all time has
been yielded for purposes of debate only. Does the gentleman from
Oklahoma yield for purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Kildee) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits
that protect 49,965 workers in Michigan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Tonko) for a unanimous consent request.
[[Page H247]]
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
3824 to end the Republican majority's refusal to extend unemployment
benefits that would protect 137,315 workers in my home State of New
York, and that number is growing as we speak.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Engel) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
3824 to end the Republicans' unconscionable refusal to extend
unemployment benefits that protect 137,315 workers in my home State of
New York.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Titus) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. TITUS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
3824 to end Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits that
protect over 19,000 workers in Nevada.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Takano) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits
that benefit over one-quarter of a million people in my home State of
California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman
from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up
H.R. 3824 to end the Republican leadership's refusal to extend
unemployment benefits that protect unemployed workers in my State of
New Hampshire.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up
H.R. 3824 to end Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits
that protect 238,855 workers in California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend
unemployment benefits that protect 238,855 workers in my home State of
California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), my colleague, for a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits
that protect nearly 63,000 workers in Massachusetts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
3824 to end the unfortunate Republican refusal to extend unemployment
benefits that protect 238,855 workers in my home State of California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
3824 to end Republicans' shameful refusal to extend unemployment
benefits that protect 238,855 workers in California, my State.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Horsford) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
3824 to end Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment insurance
benefits that protect 19,285 workers in the great State of Nevada.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Ruiz) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. RUIZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment insurance
that protects 238,855 workers in California who lost their job through
no fault of their own, and who actively seek work.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
[[Page H248]]
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cardenas) for a unanimous consent request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. First, the Chair would make a statement.
The Chair would advise Members that even though a unanimous consent
request to consider a measure is not entertained, embellishments
accompanying such request constitute debate and will become an
imposition on the time of the Member who yielded for that purpose.
Mr. CARDENAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring to this
floor H.R. 3824 to end Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment
benefits that protect families in the San Fernando Valley of which I
represent. These individuals deserve the right to eat and should not be
tossed out on the street and become homeless.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Time will be charged to the gentleman from Massachusetts for the last
request.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Frankel) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' very cruel refusal to end
unemployment benefits that would protect more than 80,000 Floridian job
seekers in my home State of Florida.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I will not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Brownley) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
bring up H.R. 3824 to end Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment
benefits that protect nearly 239,000 workers in the great State of
California.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
{time} 1315
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up
H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment
benefits that protect 80,473 workers in my home State, the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from New York
(Mrs. Maloney) for a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end the majority's refusal to extend
unemployment benefits to some of our Nation's neediest families,
including 137,315 workers in the great State of New York.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Cicilline) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, with the hope of a different response
from my friend on the other side of the aisle, I ask one more time for
unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' refusal
to extend unemployment benefits that protect 5,585 workers in my home
State of Rhode Island.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. My good friend from the other side of the aisle clearly
hasn't dealt with a lot of Native Americans, where the answer is
normally pretty much the same. So, Madam Speaker, I do not yield.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request, I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring forward
H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' unconscionable refusal to extend the
unemployment insurance which, in my State, would benefit some 62,900
workers in search of work.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield.
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for giving me the
opportunity to renew so many acquaintances with my good friends on the
other side and make some new ones. So I appreciate that.
I want to reiterate my earlier announcement that all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only, and we are not yielding for any other
purposes.
I would like to make the point that this legislation is genuinely
bipartisan. The legislation that my friends have asked for
consideration was not within the scope of consideration of this
legislation. I have no doubt it is being dealt with in the Senate right
now, but it is simply not appropriate, in my opinion, to bring it into
this debate, particularly since we are under time constraints. Were we
to fail to pass this rule and the underlying legislation in a timely
fashion, we would risk a government shutdown, which I know my friends
on the other side of the aisle want to avoid as much as we do.
So, with that, I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just say to my colleague from
Oklahoma, we are not asking to amend this bill. We are asking for the
right to be able to bring up a bill that would extend unemployment
insurance.
Let's be clear so everybody understands this. The majority, if they
agreed, could allow us to bring this up at any time. We could have this
debate right after we pass the omnibus. So there is absolutely no
reason at all that we shouldn't have the right to be able to debate the
issue of extending unemployment insurance to millions of our fellow
citizens who are looking to us for help.
It is very challenging during these economically difficult times to
be able to find employment, and we have many of our citizens who have
tried but have been unsuccessful in finding employment. They ought to
be able to support their families through this difficult time. All we
are asking for is the right to be able to bring this up and vote on it.
We are not talking about delaying passing the omnibus bill. We are
talking about unemployment insurance. We
[[Page H249]]
are talking about doing our job and not skipping town and going home
for a week while people who are unemployed and have lost their benefits
have nothing.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), whose legislation we could bring up, if we
were to defeat the previous question, to extend unemployment insurance
for the millions of Americans that have been impacted.
Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, some 1.3 million workers have lost their
jobless benefits as of December 28. That number grows by an estimated
72,000 more a week. In my home State of Massachusetts, alone, some
62,915 families have been adversely impacted, and that includes 20,000
veterans.
We can hear the urgency of families who have exhausted every avenue,
have exhausted the savings, the generosity of family and friends, even
as they look for work. About 4 million people have been cut out of work
for 27 weeks or longer. They have about a 12 percent chance of finding
a new job in any given month. There are still not enough jobs to go
around, almost three unemployed workers per every job opening. That is
worse than the ratio at any point during the 2001 recession.
If the fate of individuals doesn't move the Members of this Chamber,
perhaps a look at the economy would. For every $1 of unemployment
insurance, the economic impact is a positive $1.52. That is money with
which to buy essential services and products of our local and small
businesses, who greatly need that demand.
Seventeen times over the last decade or so we have extended benefits
in a bipartisan manner. Fourteen of those times were bipartisan in
nature, and five of those were under the administration of George W.
Bush.
The urgency is now; the need is critical. I have introduced, Madam
Speaker, the responsible legislation, entitled the Emergency
Unemployment Compensation Act, H.R. 3824. It has over 140 cosponsors
already, even though it has been filed only a matter of days. Speaker
Boehner should bring this bill to the floor immediately for a vote. Let
us act now and extend it for 3 months, and help our neighbors help
themselves as we help our Nation.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to remind my good friend that this
legislation is comparable, and this is actually under consideration in
the United States Senate right now. Frankly, my friends on the other
side of the aisle control the majority there.
I would also like to remind them that when the President first raised
this issue about a week before the end of the year, the Speaker said,
If you will help us find a way to pay for it, we will consider it. So
far I don't recall that that offer has been taken up in any serious way
by anybody.
The cost of this is extraordinary: $25 billion over a year; a
temporary 3-month extension would cost between 7 and 8. We are trying
to deal with what have been, really, deficits that have been
extraordinary. This program has been extended for 5 years.
Again, we would love to continue our dialogue with our friends. We
hope something productive happens in the United State Senate. For now I
am going to keep the focus where it belongs. That is on this omnibus
spending bill, which is a bipartisan accomplishment, which the
President has urged that we pass, which I know many of my friends on
the other side also favor.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker on
our side, I think it is important to point out that, yeah, the
Democrats do control the majority in the Senate, but a majority of
Republicans right now are filibustering consideration of extending
unemployment insurance, led by Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority
leader.
Maybe rather than waiting for them we can show some leadership here
and demonstrate to these millions of Americans who have fallen on tough
times that somebody cares; that we are not just going to let them just
dangle and be without any kind of compensation during these difficult
times; that we are going to step up to the plate and let them know that
we understand that the economy is still going through hard times and
that there is a need to extend this benefit.
I don't know how we can just turn our backs on these people who are
struggling. I mean, our job here is to help people, not to ignore their
problems, not to turn a cold shoulder when they fall on difficult
times. We all know we are emerging from one of the worst economic
crises in our lifetime. These aren't normal times. So we ought to be
there to provide some help. Let us show them a little compassion. I
don't think that that is unreasonable. I don't care what your ideology
is. We ought to not turn our backs on those who are unemployed in this
country.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada, (Mr.
Horsford).
Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
the previous question, so we finally have a chance to bring up
unemployment insurance, which is what the majority of Americans want us
to be addressing at this time. It is completely insensitive, unjust,
and flat out wrong that Congress would deny 1.4 million Americans
unemployment insurance benefits, including over 19,000 Nevadans.
This is the week that unemployment checks stop coming. This is the
week where families will be faced with very unnecessary hardships and
impossible choices. Why? Because this Congress fails to act.
Republicans are holding unemployment benefits hostage, and it is
completely hypocritical.
On December 14, 2002, in his weekly radio address, then-President
George W. Bush scolded Congress for failing to extend unemployment
insurance benefits. He said: ``These Americans rely on their
unemployment benefits to pay for their rent, to pay their food and
other critical bills.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HORSFORD. ``They need our assistance in these difficult times,
and we cannot let them down.''
The unemployment rate then was 6 percent. It is much higher now. That
Congress voted 416-4 to extend unemployment benefits, and under George
W. Bush they did it five times. They didn't ask for one pay-for because
it was important for the American public. It is time for us to do the
right thing on behalf of 1.4 million Americans.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to remind my friends--and I have no
doubt about my friend's compassion, I genuinely do not. We have had the
opportunity to serve together on the Rules Committee. I would argue the
compassionate thing to do here would be actually to start creating
jobs.
This recession ended in 2009. It has been a lot of years. We have 140
pieces of legislation stacked up in the United States Senate waiting
for the Senate to act on that we think would generate jobs, everything
from Keystone pipeline to enhanced energy production. There is a
disagreement, but I think if the Senate would act proactively we would
actually do what I know we both want to do and create jobs.
The other thing I would suggest, I have some sympathy with my friends
on the other side of the rotunda in my party. They have not been
allowed to present any of their ideas or any of their amendments on the
floor. I think they would probably like to work with our friend in that
regard, let's just see.
Again, I would suggest today we should concentrate on the thing that
we know we can do in a bipartisan fashion: pass an omnibus spending
bill that will prevent a government shutdown and will provide a firm
foundation for our economy that both sides and the President of the
United States have agreed is the right thing to do for the country.
You usually make progress one step at a time. It seems to me that is
an important step and a step we ought to make today by passing the rule
and the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from
Oklahoma's comments, and I appreciate his expressing the frustration of
the minority in the Senate not being able to express themselves, to be
heard. I feel that same frustration here because we now have just
completed a year in which I think that there have been more closed
rules than any other time in history. So I think we all on the minority
side here understand what it feels like to be shut out.
[[Page H250]]
At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, the low level of funding in the
omnibus bill for the Labor-HHS Subcommittee is far from meeting the
needs of our country. Nevertheless I will support the bill because this
compromised measure does make important improvements in health
promotion, medical research, Head Start, and Job Corps.
I commend Ranking Members Lowey, DeLauro, and their staff, who
passionately fought to protect the programs decimated by sequestration.
I am particularly grateful the bill fully funds STOP Act programs so we
can continue the progress we have made against the public health crisis
of underage drinking. I am pleased it funds newborn screening programs
that save the lives of babies with genetic disorders.
Madam Speaker, spending bills are a statement of our values and our
priorities as Americans. Unfortunately, this bill falls short of truly
reflecting those values in critically underfunded programs like Healthy
Start and Hispanic-serving institutions.
My hope is that our 2015 appropriations bill will, in fact, reflect
our commitment to investing in a better future for all Americans,
including the most vulnerable among us.
{time} 1330
Far be it from me to debate too much about what goes on in the United
States Senate, but I do think it is worth adding for the record that,
since July of this year, Republicans in the Senate have been allowed to
submit exactly four amendments. So I think we know who holds the
world's record in terms of keeping the minority off the floor.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Simpson), my distinguished friend, colleague and former chairman on the
Interior Committee and the new chairman of the Energy and Water
Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman
from California (Mr. Nunes) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy).
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for all your hard
work in putting this bill together.
Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill includes funding for three
environmental programs that have shown very little accountability since
they were enacted, specifically, the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act Restoration Fund, the CALFED Program, and the San Joaquin River
Restoration Fund.
I remain concerned about the expenditures in these programs and
whether they are going to the intended purpose. I urge the committee to
conduct an oversight hearing into these programs, and would urge you,
Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could contact the Government Accountability
Office to conduct a study of these programs run by the Bureau of
Reclamation's Mid-Pacific region.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
your work, and I appreciate your willingness and the opportunity to
bring accountability, as many of you know, to the challenge that we
have in California and the devastation of the drought, but what is
wreaking havoc throughout the Valley--which is the breadbasket--we find
many times much of this money is not being held accountable and the
lack of water that is not being supplied throughout California. We
appreciate your work on this.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank both my friends from California for their
attention to these issues. We have been discussing these issues with
both of you and your concerns for some time now, and I look forward to
exploring the issues further during a hearing and to working with the
Government Accountability Office to provide further oversight on these
programs.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield to our distinguished
minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end
the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits that protect
25,092 people in my State of Maryland.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the minority whip
that the Chair understands that the gentleman from Oklahoma has not
yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous consent request
cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
Mr. CUELLAR. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member
Lowey for their hard work on this funding package and specifically
their help in adding a first-time accountability provision to make our
Federal Government more efficient and more effective. This
accountability language will, for the first time, direct each agency
head in preparing funding requests as part of the President's annual
budget in consultation with the GAO to directly link the agency's
performance plan and performance goals to such funding requests.
It will require that performance measures examine outcome measures,
output measures, efficiency measures, and customer service measures.
This will provide the American taxpayer with results-oriented
government.
This first-time accountability language represents a real step
forward for the integration of performance-based budgeting in
government operations.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I am here to express my disappointment that we are not
bringing up H.R. 3824, a bill that would extend for 3 months emergency
unemployment compensation. It causes me to think of what the American
people would expect of us here in Congress if we were facing a national
emergency of some type that resulted in the immediate loss of basic
support for the basic needs of 1.3 million Americans.
What would we do, especially if that national emergency somehow
caused every week 72,000 additional Americans to lose the basic help
that they need to provide rent, to provide heat, put food on the
table--to take care of the basic human necessities? We would act. Sure,
as the gentleman pointed out, we would discuss ways to prevent future
national emergencies that would cause this sort of problem. We would
find ways to prevent those sorts of things from happening.
The gentleman referred to job training, economic development programs
like job training. We would do those things for sure. But in the
meantime, we would--and today we should--act to restore those benefits.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I commend
Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for their tremendous
leadership in putting together this compromise budget.
The bill is a step forward. It increases funding for many important
priorities like housing authority operations and section 8. We have got
an affordable-housing crisis in New York City, and these additional
resources will help.
The bill also makes important infrastructure investments. It fully
funds the President's request of $14.6 million for the Second Avenue
Subway in the district I represent and $215 million for the East Side
access that will help create thousands of jobs in our Nation's largest
city and is in the district of Mr. King and my district.
I am also pleased to see that there isn't a single anti-woman rider
that would threaten women's access to comprehensive health care.
This bill isn't perfect, but it is a step forward. I had hoped it
would include an extension of unemployment insurance and refund the
cuts for the National Institutes of Health, but it is a vast
improvement over the current budget, and I will be supporting it.
[[Page H251]]
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend
unemployment benefits that protect over 72,000 workers in Texas.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, in the last 18 days, nearly 1.5 million Americans have
been cut off from their emergency unemployment benefits, and tens of
thousands more Americans will lose their benefits every week without
congressional action.
Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that 2.3 million children
live with a long-term unemployed parent, triple the number since the
recession started in 2007; and losing unemployment benefits will be
devastating to so many of these families. This is unconscionable. And
what have my Republicans colleagues in the House done to address this
issue? Nothing.
Speaker Boehner's refusal to have a vote to extend emergency
unemployment benefits is shortsighted, bad for our economy, and
devastating for the 1.5 million Americans who have been cut off from
this vital lifeline.
Congress is set to adjourn in 24 hours; and instead of offering a
solution to extend emergency unemployment benefits, this rule does not
allow us to preserve this important assistance and ignores the serious
needs of our constituents. It is outrageous that the House of
Representatives would leave town again without taking action to renew
this critical program to help struggling American families.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring
this important legislative fix to the floor without delay to resolve
this problem for our constituents.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I remind my friends on the other side of the
aisle that supposedly we are in the 5th year of a recovery and that we
have extended these extraordinary benefits for 5 years at the cost of
hundreds of billions of dollars.
Now, the Speaker has indicated that if our friends, either the
administration, our friends on the other side of the aisle, or our
friends in the Senate have an idea how to pay for this extension, he
would give it due consideration. So far, it doesn't appear that such an
idea has been forthcoming.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues that
Republican President George Bush extended unemployment benefits on a
number of occasions, never paid for it; and I don't recall my friends
on the other side of the aisle raising a big to-do over that.
But the bottom line is to simply say that, well, we have extended it
multiple times, so tough luck to these people who are still struggling
in this difficult economy is unacceptable. How can we do that? We are
here to represent these people and to make sure that they have enough
to get through these difficult times until the economy gets better so
they can get a job.
This should not be controversial. This shouldn't be a big deal. I am
stunned that extending unemployment insurance to the unemployed in this
country is a controversial issue. Only in this Republican-led House of
Representatives are our priorities all messed up. Nobody talks about
pay-fors for tax cuts for Donald Trump or subsidies to Big Oil or any
special deals for corporate donors to the Republican National
Committee. No one says a word about that. But when it comes to
extending benefits to unemployed Americans, we are going to find pay-
fors.
Well, do you know what? Let's take the initiative in this House to
figure out how to get this thing done rather than leave town tomorrow
and we don't come back for a week and a half and just leave these
people hanging.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, while I intend to support the omnibus
appropriation bill, I wanted to voice my deep concern and
disappointment that the omnibus appropriation bill fails to address the
unemployment insurance issue, as well as it fails to address the rising
flood insurance premiums facing millions of those who have been
impacted by Superstorm Sandy.
Rather than amend the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Act in a
comprehensive way, the omnibus contains language that temporarily
delays flood insurance premium increases for a year and for just a
segment of policy owners. After that year, flood insurance premiums
could continue to rise exponentially for newer policies. This is
crippling our housing market recovery in areas like New York City, New
Jersey, Connecticut, and others that were hard hit by Superstorm Sandy.
Though this temporary delay may be better than nothing, it is not the
certainty that the Nation's 5.5 million flood insurance owners deserve
and need. Again, I call on Congress to bring up a comprehensive flood
insurance reform legislation quickly in order to provide economic
certainty to at-risk neighborhoods across our great country.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the chairman and
ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee.
Madam Speaker, I want to speak in support of the underlying matter,
the appropriations bill. There is a lot that I could say, a lot of
progress that we have made on a number of issues; but I want to, at
this moment, talk in particular about the investments we are making in
science and innovation.
The World Economic Forum says that the American economy is an
innovation-driven economy; and throughout this appropriations bill at
NASA, at NIHS, in terms of our Federal laboratories and across our
whole spectrum of activities including DARPA and others, we are making
significant investments.
I want to say that working with Chairman Wolf over the last three
bills that we have moved through this floor and through the process, we
have launched a high-priority research effort on neuroscience or brain
research, and we have added to that each year. This bill is no
exception. We have worked now in this legislation to internationalize
this collaboration in important ways because the E.U. and others have
launched similar initiatives in terms of understanding the complexities
related to human brain diseases and disorders therein. So I thank the
chair and the ranking member.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, could I inquire from my friend if he has any
additional speakers.
Mr. McGOVERN. I do.
Mr. COLE. In that case, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits
that protect over 26,000 workers in my State of Connecticut.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. McGOVERN. I will be the last speaker on our side.
Mr. COLE. I thank my friend.
{time} 1345
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, in a few moments, I will offer an amendment
to the rule. The amendment is necessary due to a late request submitted
by the administration to ensure that the fix for disabled military
retirees works as it was intended. The amendment was fully vetted by
the relevant House and Senate committees, majority and minority, and
the administration. The
[[Page H252]]
Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the change does not
affect the cost of the bill. This amendment will ensure that we
properly execute the agreed-upon compromise.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, just to kind of summarize here, my colleagues are
being asked to vote on this, over 1,500 pages that nobody has read. And
again, coming from the party that talked about reading the bill, I am a
little surprised that they wanted to present it this way. But I am
urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule simply because, under
the process that we have before us, nobody has an opportunity to amend
anything in this bill or change anything. I am willing to bet that in a
week or so we are going to read an article about something that was in
here that nobody even knew about, and if they did, they would have
wanted it out of the bill. So I think the process that my Republican
friends have utilized in this House of Representatives really is very
disappointing--the number of closed rules, the way they have shut down
debate, and even the way we have gotten to this point. So I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
At the end of the day, people are going to have to vote for this bill
anyway because the alternative is shutting the government down or going
back to the sequestration levels which my Republican friends embraced,
which were unacceptable--so unacceptable they couldn't pass a
Transportation appropriations bill on this House floor. They couldn't
bring an HHS bill to this floor because the numbers were so
unacceptably low that even their own Members couldn't deal with voting
for a bill like that. As far as the underlying bill goes, I think the
best that can be said about it is it begins to chip away at
sequestration. The numbers are still awful, but the alternative is even
worse.
I would also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so we can bring up a bill to extend unemployment insurance for
those who are unemployed. I am fascinated by the debate on the other
side of the aisle saying we are reluctant to do it because we have done
it a number of times. That seems more important to my Republican
colleagues than whether or not people are in need, whether or not it is
necessary to extend these benefits to keep families afloat.
Because Congress failed to act, more than 1.3 million struggling
unemployed Americans were cut off from extended emergency unemployment
benefits in the middle of the holidays. We all went home for Christmas,
and the gift we gave to these struggling Americans was we cut off their
unemployment compensation. Another 1.9 million Americans will lose this
support in the first half of this year if we don't do anything.
Too many families are still struggling to rebuild and regain what
they had before the economic crisis. It is both unfair and devastating
to cut off these benefits at the time of a 7.0 percent unemployment
rate. We should not leave Washington tomorrow, on a Thursday, and go
home for a week and a half and not address this issue. To blame the
Senate, maybe it is an easy way to just kind of brush this off, but the
bottom line is in the Senate, if you want to be of any help, talk to
the minority leader who is leading a filibuster so that this can't be
brought up over in the Senate.
But that is no excuse for us in the House not to act. That is no
excuse for us to turn our back on millions of Americans who desperately
need our help. They are going through difficult times. Our job here is
to help people, not just those who are well off, not just those who
have super-PACs or who write out checks to campaigns. Our job is to
help everybody, and that includes those who are the most vulnerable in
this, those who are struggling during this difficult economy.
Madam Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial that appeared in
The New York Times, entitled, ``No Jobs, No Benefits, and Lousy Pay.''
I will also include for the Record an article, entitled, ``New Economic
Analysis: $400 Million Drained from State Economies in Unemployment
Benefits This Week Alone.''
By not extending unemployment benefits, we are not only hurting these
families who are unemployed, we are hurting our local economies. We are
hurting the economy of this country. We need to get our priorities
straight here. Our job is to stand up for those who are in need. On too
many occasions, this Republican-led House has turned its back on those
who are most vulnerable.
So I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to vote
``no'' on the previous question. This is our only opportunity before
you go home on a recess to be able to deal with the issue of extending
unemployment insurance. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can
bring up the extension of unemployment compensation so we can help
millions of families in this country who are desperately in need of
help.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[From the New York Times, Jan. 10, 2014]
No Jobs, No Benefits, and Lousy Pay
(By The Editorial Board)
There is nothing good to say about the December employment
report, which showed that only 74,000 jobs were added last
month. But dismal as it was, the report came at an opportune
political moment. The new numbers rebut the Republican
arguments that jobless benefits need not be renewed, and that
the current minimum wage is adequate. At the same time, they
underscore the need, only recently raised to the top of the
political agenda, to combat poverty and inequality.
The report showed that average monthly job growth in 2013
was 182,000, basically unchanged from 2012. Even the decline
in the jobless rate last month, from 7 percent in November to
6.7 percent, was a sign of weakness: It mainly reflects a
shrinking labor force not new hiring as the share of workers
employed or looking for work fell to the lowest level since
1978. That's a tragic waste of human capital. It would be
comforting to ascribe the dwindling labor force mainly to
retirements or other longterm changes, but most of the
decline is due to weak job opportunities and weak labor
demand since the Great Recession.
One result is that the share of jobless workers who have
been unemployed for six months or longer has remained
stubbornly high. In December, it was nearly 38 percent, still
higher by far than at any time before the Great Recession, in
records going back to 1948.
And yet, nearly 1.3 million of those long-term unemployed
had their federal jobless benefits abruptly cut off at the
end of last year, after Republicans refused to renew the
federal unemployment program in the latest budget deal. Each
week the program is not reinstated, another 72,000 jobless
people who otherwise would have qualified for benefits will
find there is no longer a federal program to turn to. Worse,
in the Senate this week, after a show of willingness to
discuss renewing the benefits, Republicans objected to a bill
to do just that. They had demanded that a renewal be paid
for, but they didn't like how Democrats proposed to do that--
with spending cuts at the end of the budget window in 2024 in
exchange for relief today.
There was no need to pay for the benefits, which have such
a crucial and positive effect--on families, the economy and
poverty--that it would be sound to renew them even if the
government borrowed to do so. But Republicans would rather
criticize President Obama's handling of the economy than help
those left behind.
A similar dynamic is developing around the drive for a
higher minimum wage. In the December jobs report, the average
hourly wage for most workers was $20.35. That means that the
minimum wage, at $7.25 an hour, is only one-third of the
average, rather than one-half, as was the case historically.
Raising the wage to $10.10 an hour, as Democrats have
proposed, would help to restore the historical relationship.
But even that would fall far short of the roughly $17 an hour
that workers at the bottom of the wage scale would be earning
if increased labor productivity were reflected in their pay,
rather than in corporate profits, executive compensation and
shareholder returns.
Republicans, however, are opposed to any increase, as if
the numbers don't speak for themselves. Their stance also
dismisses research, and common sense, which says that raising
the wages of low- and moderate-income workers is essential
for lessening both poverty and inequality.
Instead, in the past week, they have introduced ostensibly
``antipoverty'' ideas, most prominently Senator Marco Rubio's
plan to transform federal safety net programs into state
block grants, another of the shopworn Republican ideas that
also include privatizing federal services and slashing
domestic spending. Block grants have allowed states to
disregard the needs of the least fortunate. The proposal
would set back the debate on wages, poverty and inequality.
The December jobs report is telling Congress what it needs
to do. Unfortunately, that will not lead to action anytime
soon.
New Economic Analysis: 400 Million Drained from State Economies in
Unemployment Benefits This Week Alone--January 3, 2014
Washington.--The expiration of federal unemployment
insurance at the end of last week is already taking more than
400 million out of the pockets a SHARE of American job
[[Page H253]]
seekers nationwide and state economies, according to a new
analysis by Ways and Means Committee Democrats. Unemployment
insurance is viewed as a very effective fiscal stimulus
because jobless Americans tend to spend their unemployment
insurance right away. The analysis spells out how much
federal funding each state is going without in the first week
since the emergency Federal Unemployment Compensation program
expired. In Illinois, nearly 82,000 people lost an average
313 weekly benefit for a total statewide economic impact of
25 million. In Ohio, more than 39,000 people lost an average
weekly benefit of 312 for a total statewide economic impact
of 12 million.
At 11 a.m. this morning, Ways and Means Ranking Member
Sander Levin (0-MI) and Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD)
will join former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Harvard
economist Lawrence Katz in holding a press call to highlight
the harmful economic impact that will result if Republicans
in Congress don't agree to extend the program.
``In state after state, Americans who have lost their
federal unemployment insurance in one fell swoop last week
are struggling to get by,'' said Ways and Means Ranking
Member Levin. ``Every week that Republicans fail to act tens
of thousands of additional long-term unemployed Americans
lose this vital lifeline as they look to get back on their
feet after the worst recession in generations, and the
economy in each state is taking a hit.''
Overall, failing to renew the EUC program will cost the
economy 200,000 jobs this year, according to the
Congressional Budget Office. Note that the below estimate is
conservative because it only takes into account the total
dollar amount provided per week by the now expired EUC
program. Economists generally multiply these estimates by 1.5
to 2 to show the true economic impact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
people who Avg. weekly Total
State lost benefit benefit lost
benefits lost this week
Dec. 28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK-............................. 4,300- $247.61 $1,064,723
AL-............................. 12,036 206.21 2,481,944
AR-............................. 9,300- 286.11 2,660,823
AZ-............................. 17,100 219.06 3,745,926
CA-............................. 213,793 303.37 64,858,382
CO-............................. 20,237 359.12 7,267,511
CT-............................. 23,997 335.95 8,061,792
DC-............................. 4,600- 300.87 1,384,002
DE-............................. 3,600- 243.57 876,852
FL-............................. 73,000 231.20 16,877,600
GA-............................. 54,400 266.23 14,482,912
HI-............................. 1,900- 415.82 790,058
IA-............................. 4,300- 325.95 1,401,585
ID-............................. 2,600- 258.36 671,736
IL-............................. 81,867 312.77 25,605,542
IN-............................. 19,200 238.24 4,574,208
KS-............................. 4,400- 333.42 1,467,048
KY-............................. 18,000 288.60 5,194,800
LA-............................. 7,832- 205.80 1,611,826
MA-............................. 58,700 444.00 26,062,800
MD-............................. 22,900 326.30 7,472,270
ME-............................. 3,300- 284.84 939,972
MI-............................. 43,311 293.92 12,729,969
MN-............................. 9,231- 375.15 3,463,010
MO-............................. 21,329 235.04 5,013,168
MS-............................. 13,400 192.15 2,574,810
MT-............................. 1,876- 283.80 532,409
NC*-............................ NA- NA- NA
ND-............................. 300- 386.11 115,833
NE-............................. 1,200- 272.31 326,772
NH-............................. 1,004- 287.49 288,640
NJ-............................. 90,300 381.79 34,475,637
NM-............................. 6,000- 288.66 1,731,960
NV-............................. 17,600 306.90 5,401,440
NY-............................. 127,100 305.75 38,860,825
OH-............................. 39,100 311.82 12,192,162
OK-............................. 4,907- 294.62 1,445,700
OR-............................. 20,067 321.14 6,444,316
PA-............................. 73,330 343.31 25,174,922
PR-............................. 30,700 117.76 3,615,232
RI-............................. 4,900- 337.13 1,651,937
SC-............................. 15,400 248.29 3,823,666
SD-............................. 200 261.34 52,268
TN-............................. 19,500 236.07 4,603,365
TX-............................. 64,294 338.59 21,769,305
UT-............................. 2,500- 344.58 861,450
VA-............................. 9,700- 296.95 2,880,415
V1-............................. 1,300- 310.91 404,183
VT-............................. 600 298.13 178,878
WA-............................. 24,414 395.14 9,646,948
WI-............................. 23,700 266.09 6,306,333
WV-............................. 6,933- 271.37 1,881,408
WY-............................. 600- 371.36 222,816
---------------------------------------
Total-...................... 1,336,158- 304.86 408,224,089
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Estimates exclude North Carolina, which ended its EUCO8 program in July
2013. US Dept. of Labor, Office of Unemployment Insurance.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I would again like to thank my friends
Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for their efforts to bring an
important product to this floor, a product which fulfills our
constitutional responsibility of appropriating funds for the government
for the fiscal year 2014.
While this is not the bill I would have drafted, or I am sure that my
friend would have drafted, I believe it strikes an appropriate balance
between key Republican and Democratic priorities, and I believe it will
attract the majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as
well as the majority of my friends on my own side of the aisle.
I want to thank my friend in the sense that, while we have had a
contentious debate, we are actually going to be, on the underlying
legislation, voting together. That may have been gotten lost in the
debate. I will be voting with the majority of his colleagues and at the
urging of the President of the United States. So we ought to recognize
that, while we have had some partisan differences here, the legislation
itself was crafted in a bipartisan manner. It was brought to this
floor. I would agree with my friend, I would have preferred 12
different bills and a lot more time, but we have a limited time frame
here. It was brought in a cooperative manner. Both the ranking member
and the chairman are urging its passage. It is something that we ought
to take, frankly, some pride in and certainly congratulate those who
had a hand in it.
I want to also point out to my friend on the unemployment issue, here
we probably do disagree. But the Speaker has made it apparent, if there
are appropriate pay-fors, he is willing to consider that. Without
questioning my friends on the other side of the rotunda, so far they
simply have not provided that. I think the Speaker's offer has been out
since before the end of the year, since before the benefits ended.
It is also worth noting that this does not affect regular
unemployment benefits. Those are still there for all Americans. This is
a program which has been extended 5 years. We are now in a time when
the recession is 4 years in the rearview mirror. Unemployment has been
coming down. If it still needs to be extended for some people, we ought
to find a way, in my view, to pay for it, and I think the Speaker has
made it apparent that he would consider any serious proposal in that
regard. So far, we haven't had that.
Sometimes, Madam Speaker, the smart vote and the easy vote are the
wrong vote. I know some of my friends on the other side might decide to
vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. I never quibble with a rule
vote. I respect that process because from their perspective there is a
lot to criticize here. Certainly from my side of the aisle, there is a
lot to criticize as well. We are going to have some ``no'' votes. But I
think there is not much question that the right vote here is to vote
for the underlying legislation, assuming that the rule is adopted, and
I think it will be. I think it is the right thing for the country. I
think it is the right thing for the process itself to actually get back
to regular order, to consider the bills in the manner that I know my
friend would like them to be considered in, and to have an open
amendment process, which we do on appropriations legislation. This is
an essential first step to doing that.
I think that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey have probably
done more in this legislation to restore the process and rebuild. They
have given us a foundation for the next fiscal year that will allow us
to do precisely the things that my friend would like to do and that I
agree, in a normal process, ought to be done.
So I would obviously urge support for the rule, but more importantly,
after the rule passes, assuming it does, the underlying legislation so
that we can work together in a bipartisan fashion; we can make sure
that we have no government shutdowns next year. I think that will do
more to create jobs and economic certainty than probably any single
thing we could do.
Our Appropriations Committee, working in a bipartisan fashion under
the leadership of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, has done
that. I would suggest that this probably is something that all of us
should reflect upon, congratulate upon, and then try to spread
throughout the institution. If we worked the way they worked in putting
this bill together and bringing it to the floor on every other piece of
legislation, I think the country would be well served; and, frankly,
all of us would have a great deal to be proud of. With that, again, I
urge the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 2, line 6, after ``Rules Committee Print 113-32''
insert ``(as modified by section 6 of this resolution)''.
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 6. The modification referred to in the first section
of this resolution is as follows: page 363, strike lines 12
through 16 and insert the following:
``(1) Combat-related special compensation.--Section
1413a(b)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
``(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting `, with adjustment
under paragraph (2) of section 1401a(b) of this title to
which the member would have been entitled (but without
[[Page H254]]
the application of paragraph (4) of such section),' after
`under any other provision of law'; and
``(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking `whichever is
applicable to the member.' and inserting `with adjustment
under paragraph (2) of section 1401a(b) of this title to
which the member would have been entitled (but without the
application of paragraph (4) of such section), whichever is
applicable to the member.'.''.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 458 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3824) to provide for the extension of certain unemployment
benefits, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3824 as specified in Section 6 of this
resolution.
THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adopting the amendment, if ordered, and adopting the
resolution, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 195, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 19]
YEAS--228
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
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
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
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
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
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--195
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
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
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
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
[[Page H255]]
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
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
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Buchanan
Cleaver
Gabbard
Hurt
Jones
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Rush
Stockman
{time} 1420
Mr. VELA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HURT. Madam Speaker, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 19,
on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 458. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam 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 230,
noes 191, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 20]
AYES--230
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
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
Duckworth
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
Herrera Beutler
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
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
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
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--191
Andrews
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
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
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
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Cleaver
DeFazio
Gabbard
Jones
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Rogers (MI)
Rush
Stockman
{time} 1429
Ms. SINEMA changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________