[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 30, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3301-H3308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4486, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND 
  VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015; AND 
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4487, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 557 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 557

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, 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. 4486) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, 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 and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member

[[Page H3302]]

     of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for 
     failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of 
     the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition 
     on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the 
     committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a 
     recommendation that the bill do pass, 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.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, 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. 
     4487) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, 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 and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments 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.
       Sec. 3.  Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution on 
     the budget for fiscal year 2015, the amounts provided for 
     current law mandatory budget authority and outlays contained 
     in the statement of the Chair of the Committee on the Budget 
     of the House of Representatives in the Congressional Record 
     dated April 29, 2014, shall be considered for all purposes in 
     the House to be allocations to the Committee on 
     Appropriations under section 302(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of H.R. 4486 and H.R. 4487 
     pursuant to this resolution, the suballocations printed in 
     House Report 113-425 shall be considered for all purposes in 
     the House to be suballocations under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Oklahoma is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills 
that the House will consider for fiscal year 2015: H.R. 4486, the 
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act; and H.R. 
4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.
  The resolution provides an open rule for consideration of H.R. 4486 
so that all Members have the opportunity to come to the floor and offer 
amendments on this important piece of legislation.
  The resolution also provides a structured rule for consideration of 
H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, which is 
customarily considered in this manner. This structured rule makes in 
order eight amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to this House the first of what 
I hope are many appropriations bills for fiscal year 2015. Because of 
the Ryan-Murray budget agreement late last year, the Appropriations 
Committee has been able to move expeditiously and report these two 
bills for consideration by the whole House. In fact, this is the 
earliest that appropriations bills have been considered in this House 
since 1974.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, both of these bills enjoy strong bipartisan 
support. Both were reported out of committee by voice vote and take 
into account updated priorities for the coming fiscal year.
  I am proud, for example, that we were able to provide additional 
funding for our veterans, who have given so much in service to our 
country. I am also proud that these bills maintain the fiscal 
discipline this country so desperately needs.
  The MilCon-VA bill actually spends $1.8 billion less than fiscal year 
2014, and the Legislative Branch bill provides for level funding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Rogers for beginning this 
process in earnest, and look forward to consideration of additional 
appropriations measures at the appropriate time.
  I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would like to thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4486, the Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015 provides for $165 
billion in appropriations for veterans programs, military construction 
projects, and other agencies and programs. H.R. 4487, the Legislative 
Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, provides for $3.3 
billion for legislative branch activities.
  Clearly, the parties working on this matter worked together, and we 
need more of that in this institution. This bipartisan effort brought 
Democrats and Republicans together to draft legislation that 
appropriates funds to military construction projects, improves quality 
of life for veterans and military families, and allows for the 
continued operation of the essential functions of our Nation's 
governing body.
  Included within these measures is an increase of $8.8 billion for 
veterans benefits programs, guaranteeing those who have dedicated 
themselves to defending our Nation will receive the benefits they 
earned.
  I am very proud of the fact that Mike Sykes is sitting with me today, 
who is one of those veterans that is working in my office and prepared 
me for this particular day. I would like to thank him, Tom, and all of 
the people that work with us with reference to this particular part of 
the responsibilities that we have on the Rules Committee.
  H.R. 4486 provides for significant reductions to Defense Department 
construction spending, which is in line with the President's fiscal 
2015 request, but uses those savings to increase total funding for the 
Veterans Affairs Department by 7 percent.
  This shift represents the growing awareness that as we wind down the 
costly wars that we have been engaged in for over a decade, we must now 
turn our full attention to supporting those who will bear the cost of 
those wars for decades to come.

                              {time}  1230

  Last week, I participated in a ceremony for World War II, Vietnam, 
and Korean war veterans where we were honoring a gentleman that has 
spent a large portion of his career in making sure that veterans 
receive their proper due.
  It was telling to me that we had not done all that they anticipated 
that we could, and, therefore, I am hopeful that we will take 
cognizance of the fact that the veterans coming home from Iraq and 
Afghanistan will have tremendous needs, and, hopefully, this small 
advance will allow for us to attend them properly.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs is provided a total of $158.2 
billion in budget authority, an increase of almost 7 percent over last 
year. This legislation ensures full funding for essential VA 
compensation and benefits programs in areas like education, vocational 
training, and housing assistance.

[[Page H3303]]

  This measure also includes $58.7 billion in advance funding for the 
VA, ensuring that veterans will continue to have full access to their 
medical care needs, regardless of where Congress stands in the annual 
appropriations process.
  The underlying legislation includes funding for important national 
programs and activities, such as the Medical and Prosthetic Research 
account, Post-9/11 GI Bill authorities, and encouragement for the 
department to maximize the availability of mental health services to 
veteran victims of sexual trauma while serving in the military.
  H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, while a 
bipartisan effort--and for the most part, noncontroversial--still falls 
short of restoring funding levels for Member offices and committee 
staffs.
  As with their fixation on cutting spending on any investment in our 
Nation's infrastructure, education, and scientific research, my friends 
on the Republican side continue to believe that you can reduce the 
budget indefinitely and still get the same product.
  What they fail to acknowledge is that, eventually, there comes a 
breaking point where the lack of investment produces tangible 
reductions in the quality of the product rendered, and unfortunately, 
that time is fast approaching for Members' offices and committee 
staffs.
  Two reports mentioned by the minority members on the Legislative 
Branch Subcommittee bring into stark relief the consequences of ongoing 
funding shortfalls.
  The first, by the Congressional Management Foundation and the Society 
for Human Resource Management, shows that over 50 percent of 
congressional staff cite salaries as a major factor in their decision 
to leave their positions.
  The second, by the Congressional Research Service, found that, 
between 1977 and 2010, House committee staff levels dropped by 28 
percent, while Senate committee staff levels have increased by almost 
15 percent over the same time.
  Either the Senate is doing a lot more work than we are, or we are 
seriously hamstringing our ability to conduct thorough research and 
debate on the critical issues before us today.
  We cannot continue to decimate our staffs and committees, while 
asking for more and more from them. As we must be responsible stewards 
of the resources that the American people have entrusted us with, so 
too must we be responsible to those who have chosen public service.
  Just as we cannot continue to allow companies to pay nonliving wages, 
we cannot continue to pay our staffs in the same manner that we have. 
We can and must do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend for putting 
an emphasis and a spotlight on an area of bipartisan cooperation in the 
veterans area. He is precisely right in the concern that both sides of 
the aisle have for the men and women in uniform that have fought this 
Nation's battles.
  While the wars themselves have been contentious, I actually don't 
think the funding of veterans has ever been contentious, regardless of 
who was President and regardless of who was in control of this Chamber.
  Quite frankly, as I recall, during the Bush years, we increased 
veterans expenditures by about 100 percent over an 8-year period. That 
has continued under President Obama.
  Again, you can never do enough, but I think the Congress actually, 
over an extended period, has really tried in this area and has worked 
together quite well in a bipartisan sense.
  My friend also referred a little bit to the legislative branch, and 
there, again, we probably have some areas of agreement, maybe some 
areas of disagreement, but not profound ones.
  The reality is we are in a difficult time financially. My friend is 
absolutely correct when he points to some of the reductions in House 
expenditures. We have reduced, by about 14 percent, House expenditures 
over the last 3 or 4 years.
  I would suggest, while those changes have been difficult, they have 
been appropriate, given the size of the deficit and the fiscal 
difficulties we had.
  It is important to note, in this budget, we make no further 
reductions. As a matter of fact, we actually increase expenditures in 
some important institutions that actually support Congress and its 
work.
  We have not done it again, as my friend has correctly stated, for 
Members' offices or for committees. We did do a little bit of that last 
year in raising so-called MRAs and committee budgets.
  This year, because of the allocation we had, frankly, I have chosen, 
as chairman of that committee, to focus on things like the Government 
Accountability Office, the Government Printing Office, the Capitol 
Police, the Congressional Budget Office, areas that are absolutely 
indispensable in the operation of this institution. The Library of 
Congress, another one where the Congressional Research Service is 
housed, again, is very important to what we do.
  Hopefully, as we go forward, we will be able to do more in some of 
these areas, but I think, given what we had, we have done reasonably 
well; and again, while these have been tough decisions, they have been 
made in a bipartisan manner with the cooperation between majority and 
minority on the appropriate Legislative Branch Subcommittee.
  Finally, my friend did point to the Senate, and I suppose we always 
have a little bit of envy of the other body in terms of its funding. I 
would suggest, while their expenditures have gone up, they have not 
been particularly dynamic in their legislative performance.
  Frankly, far be it from me to offer a definitive opinion. We normally 
let each institution do what they want to do, but I am always happy for 
the contrast in the budget of a Republican House and a Democratic 
Senate because I think it is abundantly clear which one is serious 
about fiscal responsibility and which one is not, and I suspect we will 
have that debate going forward.
  Again, I thank my friend for his remarks and his focus on what is 
genuinely important, and I know, when he talks about this institution 
and its staff and its functions, he does so with genuine respect and 
genuine concern.
  Again, some of those concerns, I certainly share, and perhaps, going 
forward, as we did last year and we tried to do in some of the 
supportive institutions this year, we can restore some of that 
capability that I know he and I would both like to see us have.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the 
ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, 
Environment, and Related Agencies.
  Mr. Moran is leaving us after this session, and he will be sorely 
missed, but he takes it upon himself to address an issue that is of 
vital concern to all Members of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my very good friend, Judge 
Hastings of Florida. Thank you very much for your service to this 
country, Judge.
  Mr. Speaker, my comments, although critical, will be in no way 
personally critical of my very good friend from Oklahoma with whom I 
serve on the Appropriations Committee. He knows my very high regard for 
his integrity, his judgment, his character; and I value our friendship.
  I rise in opposition to this rule, not the Military Construction-
Veterans part--because that is an open rule, that is not at issue--but 
with regard to the Legislative Branch.
  There are several amendments that should not have been made in order, 
should not, in my view, have even been taken seriously, but the reason 
I oppose it is particularly because there was an amendment that was not 
made in order that should be discussed on the floor of this House.
  I offered an amendment, a very modest one, to provide $25 a day to 
the Members in the form of a housing allowance for the days that we are 
in session--only the days we are in session. Now, we have been in 
session an average of 112 days per year recently, so that would have 
come out, not coincidentally, to exactly what our salaries would have 
been raised by, had there

[[Page H3304]]

not been a freeze included in this Legislative Branch Appropriations 
bill.
  Frankly, it is an incentive for the Congress to be in session more 
days, but it is far more important than that. It would also have only 
applied to people who live more than 50 miles from Capitol Hill. I live 
10 miles. In fact, it would not apply to any of us directly anyway 
because we can't raise our own salaries. It would only apply to future 
Congresses.
  That is what this amendment is about. It is about the composition of 
this Congress, this institution, in the future, and that is why it is 
important.
  I know it is not going to be popular among our constituents. When the 
word got out I suggested it in Mr. Cole's subcommittee and on full 
committee, we got hundreds of calls, all of them negative, most of them 
profane; but that doesn't mean that it is an issue that should not be 
discussed on the House floor.
  We have denied pay increases to ourselves 11 times since I came into 
the Congress. There was a deal made a couple decades ago that said, if 
you don't receive money from speeches and honoraria, in return, the 
Congress will simply increase its pay by the cost of living each year, 
so it will be less politicized.
  But what we did not only eliminated those outside sources of income, 
but we have in fact, politicized the issue by freezing our pay 
consistently. In fact, over the last 5 years, we have frozen our pay. 
This will be the sixth year in a row, and it is creating a serious 
problem, a problem that is only going to be exacerbated in the future.
  I know the opinion of our constituents, but one of the things they 
may not be aware of is that the District of Columbia has one of the 
highest rental costs in the Nation. It is about $27,000 a year right 
now for a very modest rental apartment, and it goes up each year.
  At the same time, since I came into the Congress, congressional pay 
has gone down by one-fifth. We are paying ourselves one-fifth less than 
we were in 1992, so it is very difficult for many Members to afford to 
live here.
  This is the first time that this pay freeze has been included in a 
Legislative Branch appropriations bill. It sets a precedent, and it is 
a precedent that is going to be very difficult to reverse. I don't 
think either party is going to take it upon themselves to try to change 
this. It is going to become obligatory in each successive Legislative 
Branch appropriations bill.
  So I suspect, 5, 10, 15 years from now, it is still going to be the 
same; and what is the result of that?
  Well, it means that the Congress is probably going to be composed of 
two types of Members. One will be those Members who come in for one, 
two, three terms and then, frankly, cash out, go into the private 
sector, take advantage of that experience, albeit limited, in the 
Congress, and then provide well for their families.

                              {time}  1245

  The second class of Member is likely to be those who are 
independently wealthy, who, in fact, as some do, could afford to give 
back their salaries because they don't need it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the Member.
  So what does that mean? It means those people who are in their 
thirties, and early forties, who have young families, who, in fact, 
have home mortgages, who have unpaid student loans, who are small 
business owners, they are all going to be less likely to represent our 
constituencies who are most represented by those folks who have 
difficulty meeting their costs day after day.
  I think this is very dangerous. It is a dangerous precedent. We 
should be able to discuss it. And that is all we ask for. I didn't 
expect a positive vote, but I expected a discussion of a very important 
issue as to how this Congress is going to be represented in the future.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I want to begin by extending the same regard and personal 
affection to my friend that he was kind enough to display toward me. I 
have had the privilege of serving with him on the Appropriations 
Committee, obviously, ever since I arrived at that committee; and we 
currently serve on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee together, 
the Legislative Branch Subcommittee together, and Interior Subcommittee 
together. And on that committee, Interior, of course he was an 
absolutely superb chairman. I happen to think he is an even better 
ranking member. But he was a superb chairman, and we have worked 
together on many items. And I, like my friend from Florida, am going to 
miss my friend from Virginia, who I think has rendered distinguished 
service in this Chamber, and certainly to our committee.
  In terms of his suggested amendment, I will make two points. First, 
we are advised this is a clause 2 violation to be legislating on an 
appropriations bill; and I thought there was a reasonable chance, 
secondly, that we would have a chance to discuss this and he would have 
a chance to make his point.
  And I am glad that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) did make 
the point that he made because I think it is a very important point to 
be made. I particularly share your concerns about the long-term 
character of the body, and I think those were well stated. I don't 
think we are in any danger right now of reaching that point, but I 
think my friend does point out a trend that could occur.
  I would also be quick to add, there are about as many different 
styles of Members as there are Members themselves. Some people come 
here with the idea of being here for a long time. Other people come 
here for shorter periods of time, not with the idea of cashing out, but 
because they believe that is the appropriate way to serve.
  In my State, my good friend Senator Coburn has always lived by term 
limits. He did when he was in this Chamber. He has, again, in the 
Senate. So not every Member that comes here and serves 6 or 8 years is 
trying to cash out. They just think that is the appropriate length of 
time, and that is a judgment that is quite often shared by their 
constituents. And again, I think either one is appropriate. I think 
Members and districts make that decision for themselves.
  But I also think, in consideration of the decisions we have made in 
the last several years--by both parties, by the way. Again, my friends, 
when they were in the majority, had some concerns about increases in 
salaries as well, and I think that was because they saw the fiscal 
problems of the country.
  We have had to make some tough decisions around here in the last few 
years. We are going to have to make, I think, some more tough 
decisions. And I think sometimes, to add legitimacy to those decisions, 
you have to lead by example. I think that is what we have tried to do. 
I think that is what my friends tried to do as well during the period 
that they were in the majority. So as long as we are preaching fiscal 
austerity, we have got to practice a little fiscal austerity.
  But I want to conclude by saying, I still think my friend's point is 
a very important one to be heard. I am glad he made the remarks that he 
did and has raised it.
  I am sorry for your staff because I am sure the incoming mail and 
calls have been extraordinary.
  But again, one of the things I like about my friend, even when I 
disagree with him--because on occasion, we do--he is never afraid to 
articulate a position and present a point of view. And if there is a 
little fire associated with that, so much the better. I think he enjoys 
the give-and-take of that. And that is one of the things I am going to 
miss the most about him when he departs this Chamber.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the next 
speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, just in response to my friend from Oklahoma, what Mr. 
Moran pointed to was the fact that moderate rent in this metropolitan 
area is $27,000 a year. I don't think it is unreasonable for us to not 
only have a discussion, but to do something about the fact that there 
are Members that are here that can't afford that on the salary that 
they make. Now, it may be that the constituency is unsympathetic. It 
may be that these are tough times.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page H3305]]

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  It may be that these are tough times, but the simple fact of the 
matter is we have at least 20 Members of the House of Representatives 
living in their offices, and I don't think that that is right. And I 
think that the public needs to know that, and I think once the public 
understands that a lot of that is attributed not only to that Member's 
idea about how to serve, but the fact that he or she cannot serve in a 
proper manner living in accommodations that I think they deserve by 
getting to this high station.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Hahn), a member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  Ms. HAHN. I thank my friend from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Chairman Culberson and Ranking 
Member Bishop for working with me to include two much-needed provisions 
in this Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations 
report. This bill makes important steps in fulfilling the promise that 
we have made to our veterans by providing job search assistance and 
offering homeless assistance to veterans displaced by domestic 
violence.
  The unemployment rate for veterans is 9 percent compared to 6.7 
percent nationwide, and it is even higher for women veterans. The 
unemployment rate for our women veterans is 9.6 percent. And after 
fighting for this country, we should ensure that they have a job and a 
place to live.
  Veterans have skills our businesses need, and the VA should assist in 
matching potential employers with job-seeking veterans. My provision 
will encourage the VA and the Department of Labor to create a job 
placement service.
  Also, I am very pleased that the chairman included language covering 
veterans displaced by domestic violence. Due to an oversight in our 
current law, the legal definition of ``homeless veteran'' differs 
significantly from the standard civilian definition of ``homeless 
person.'' This means veterans fleeing from domestic violence could be 
excluded from receiving the benefits available to other homeless 
veterans.
  The language included updates the definition of ``homeless veteran'' 
to bring it into line with the rest of the law. This meaningful change 
to this policy will make a large difference in the lives of veterans, 
particularly women veterans, displaced from their home due to domestic 
violence. In addition, this change is supported by several veterans 
organizations, such as the VFW, AMVETS, and the National Coalition for 
Homeless Veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, both of these provisions represent a real step forward 
for fulfilling the promise to our Nation's veterans. And while 
sometimes we discuss our own living situation here, what is really 
important today is making sure that our veterans are housed with 
dignity and respect.

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank my friend from California for working so closely with 
Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop on what is a genuinely 
important contribution to the legislation; and I think, frankly, it is 
pretty exemplary of the manner in which Chairman Culberson and Ranking 
Member Bishop worked together throughout this process. I saw it myself 
during our full committee markup where, literally, they were working 
together to make changes to try and respond to Members' legitimate 
concerns in this area and did it right to the last minute of the bill.
  So I know we are going to have contentious moments in the 
appropriations process; we always do as we go forward. But in this 
particular case, in this legislation, and certainly between the 
chairman and ranking member, I think we have an example of how to work 
together in a bipartisan fashion that most Americans, if they had a 
chance to learn about it, would be genuinely pleased with.
  So again, I thank my friend from California for participating outside 
the committee in that. I think she made a very valuable contribution, 
and I am pleased that she made that point. And again, I recognize the 
wonderful work of Mr. Culberson and Mr. Bishop.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), my good friend.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Judge Hastings, for 
his friendship, his consideration, and his assistance during my time 
here in Congress. And I am pleased to recognize the very fine Member, 
my good friend, Representative Cole from Oklahoma.
  I will speak later, at another time, about the appropriations bill on 
the legislative branch. I now want to speak in support of the Military 
Construction, VA and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
  For 4 years in a row, the Appropriations Committee has placed in the 
bill an additional $20 million for suicide prevention and mental health 
outreach services. Several people have made this possible, starting 
with my New Jersey colleague, Representative Runyan, who has worked 
with me very closely and in a very bipartisan way on this issue over 
the last 4 years. I want to thank the subcommittee chair, 
Representative Culberson, and Ranking Member Bishop for their steady 
support of our efforts; and of course to the full committee leaders, 
Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, for their support.
  Since 2012, the committee has increased funding for suicide 
prevention and outreach by $120 million overall at the request of 
Representative Runyan and me and other Members who have joined us in 
this effort, but our work on this issue is far from over.
  Last week, The Washington Post reported that, while the suicide rates 
for our Active Duty force have come down in recent years, we have 
actually seen a tragic increase in suicide rates among our Guard and 
Reserve and veterans. The Department of Veterans Affairs' own 
statistics show that suicides among veterans have risen from an average 
of 18 per day in 2007 to about 22 per day, each one a tragedy. And I 
fear that the number may be even higher than is recorded.
  I have no doubt that this committee and every Member of this body is 
committed to reversing this tragic trend, and these additional funds 
will certainly help. I believe that Congress must now give greater 
attention to the question of why we are seeing a difference emerging in 
the suicide rates between our Active Duty force, on the one hand, and 
our Guard and the Reserve and veterans population, on the other.
  While this bill will be the last VA appropriations bill on which I 
work in Congress, I know that other Members who share my concern will 
carry on this work, and for that, I am grateful.
  I hope that Congress will authorize a regular permanent increase in 
funding for mental health and suicide prevention so that these annual 
appeals for appropriations will not be necessary in the future.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOLT. Finally, I would say to anyone who is listening--my 
colleagues and the public alike--if they know a current or former 
servicemember who may be in need of help, Vets4Warriors, which is the 
Defense Department's New Jersey-based peer-to-peer counseling program, 
can help. The phone number is 1-855-VET-TALK. Calls are free, answered 
24 hours a day, staffed by former servicemembers. It is the best 
lifeline we can offer.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to begin by thanking my friend from New Jersey and again 
recognize his very special and very distinguished service in this body. 
This is a typical example of the good sense and the compassion he 
brings to the floor on a regular basis, and I know I appreciate that. 
And while we are in different parties, he is one of the people, like my 
friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who spoke earlier, that I most admire 
and I think is generally admired on both sides of the aisle. So I 
associate myself with the remarks he made and appreciate that very, 
very much, and I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do next 
because he has certainly distinguished himself here, as

[[Page H3306]]

he had in his academic career before he came here. And whatever he does 
next, I know he will be equally distinguished in that field, but we 
will miss him very much in this body.
  And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous 
question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1010, 
our bill to raise the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.

                              {time}  1300

  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Takano) to discuss the importance of raising the minimum wage.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding time to debate the rule.
  Pop quiz. There is a piece of legislation that will give more than 25 
million Americans a pay raise, bring nearly 1 million Americans out of 
poverty, and lower total food stamp aid by $4.6 billion.
  What do you do? What do you do? If you are the House Republican 
majority, you schedule a vote for H.R. 627, the National Park Service 
100th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act, and not legislation that 
accomplishes the items I just mentioned by raising the minimum wage.
  What is it going to take for my Republican colleagues to do something 
that will actually help the economy? They came into the majority after 
the 2010 midterm elections saying that priorities one, two, and three 
were jobs, jobs, jobs. But this body hasn't seen anything substantive 
that would show that to be the truth.
  Since 2011, the House Republicans forced the shutdown of the 
government, threatened the full faith and credit of the United States, 
and developed an obsession with repealing the Affordable Care Act. They 
have done nothing to help the American people.
  No American working full-time should live in poverty. Raising the 
minimum wage will increase the take-home pay for more than 28 million 
Americans. It will add $35 billion to the economy and higher wages 
through 2016. It will create 85,000 new jobs as a result of the 
increased economic activity.
  But make no mistake. Those statistics are not likely to change their 
minds. No facts likely will because their refusal to give millions of 
Americans a raise is not about facts or economics; it is about keeping 
their sugar donors happy--sugar donors like the Koch brothers and 
Sheldon Adelson.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. TAKANO. And while these sugar donors are throwing 10s of millions 
of dollars away on campaign ads in select toss-up districts, regular, 
hardworking Americans are struggling just to keep their heads above 
water.
  For our country to move forward and continue to grow, we must do more 
for those who need help. President Franklin Roosevelt once said:

       The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the 
     abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide 
     enough for those who have little.

  To provide enough, we must raise the minimum wage.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we 
can bring the minimum wage bill to the floor and get to work growing 
our economy and helping working families.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate what my friend from California had to 
say, the reality is this legislation doesn't have anything to do with 
the minimum wage, and frankly, it would be inappropriate to consider 
the minimum wage here. It would be legislating on an appropriations 
bill, something that as a rule we do not do around here.
  Second, while not wishing to engage in a long debate about the 
minimum wage, I will say this. Remember, the people of this country and 
the people of individual States have the opportunity to move on this 
issue when they choose. Indeed, 19 States, if I recall correctly, 
actually have minimum wages above the Federal minimum wage.
  There is serious concern that the one-size-fits-all minimum wage 
doesn't make a lot of sense. I can tell my friend I don't pretend to be 
an expert on what the cost of living in California or New York is, but 
I am sure it is considerably higher than it is in the State of 
Oklahoma, and at the end of the day, I actually trust the Oklahoma 
Legislature, the Oklahoma Governor, and the Oklahoma electorate to make 
this decision for themselves. I don't think imposing a national 
solution or national standard in this case is necessary or desirable.
  So, again, I think you leave this to the wisdom of the States and 
localities. I think that is what our Founders generally envisioned we 
should do when we had questions of this nature.
  Again, I am sure we will have this debate another time and on other 
occasions. It is a perfectly appropriate debate to have. It is not an 
appropriate debate, it would not be something we could do legislatively 
on this particular rule or the underlying legislation. So it seems to 
me not a strong reason to vote against either one because this vehicle 
could not carry the legislation that my friend from California would 
like to see enacted.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from 
Oklahoma that I am the last speaker, and I am prepared to close if he 
is prepared to close.
  Mr. COLE. I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very kindly.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been one of our more syrupy debates around here, 
and it is because of the bipartisan nature that allowed for this 
legislation to come to the Rules Committee and then to be put here on 
the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that we can be pleased by the level of 
support provided in this legislation for essential veterans programs. 
America's veterans deserve the very best support our Nation has to 
offer, and I am pleased to note that Democrats and Republicans came 
together to craft legislation that provides the necessary resources for 
veterans and their families.
  At the same time, though, we must realize that if we continue to 
strangle the support for the offices that are tasked with creating the 
legislation and programs to support those very veterans, we will 
eventually begin to fail them, as well.
  We must break free from the false logic that all spending is bad 
spending and realize that investments in our country, our 
infrastructure, our education, our medical research, or even our 
legislature is a sound one.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer 
an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1010, our bill to raise the 
Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. And while my friend from 
Oklahoma makes very salient commentary regarding what might very well 
be a view of some note in our body politic, I don't deem it unwise or 
unnecessary to talk about lifting people out of poverty at any time 
during the course of our legislative business, understanding the rules 
and the fact that this would not have been a rule germane to the 
specific issue.
  But it is germane to the families out there in America. It is germane 
to the people that are working and are still in poverty that may be 
lifted out of poverty if we were to have a $10.10-an-hour minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I now yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, I would like to say that one of the basic functions of 
Congress is to fund the government, and this rule would begin the 
process for consideration for fiscal year 2015 of actually doing that 
function and doing it in an orderly way and appropriate way.
  I am particularly pleased that the appropriations process has moved 
as well and as quickly as it has so far this year. To that, I give 
credit to my

[[Page H3307]]

friend, Chairman Rogers, and my great friend, Ranking Member Lowey. 
They have worked well in a bipartisan manner.
  I want to also commend the chairman of the Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. Mr. Bishop is the ranking member, and 
Mr. Culberson is the chairman. I think they have done a wonderful job.
  Frankly, I have had the opportunity to work with my good friend 
Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the legislative branch as the ranking 
member, and I am currently privileged to be the chairman. I think that 
has been a very productive relationship. I have no doubt we are going 
to have some contention in other bills, but these bills have really 
moved together in a bipartisan fashion, and I think given the 
allocations that we had, have been worked through in a very 
professional, workmanlike way.
  Now, my friend from Florida did mention the syrupy debate, and I know 
that is not his style. I have had the privilege of serving with him on 
the Rules Committee not just in this Congress but in a previous 
Congress, and he is one of the best debaters on the floor, and I have 
no doubt on every occasion I have seen he always gives as good as he 
gets and makes his case quite well. But I have appreciated having the 
opportunity to have this exchange with him. Obviously, I would urge 
that my colleagues actually support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  While the rule vote is a procedural vote, and it is not uncommon for 
us to basically have a partisan division, I suspect that when the 
underlying legislation actually reaches this floor on the MilCon bill, 
the VA bill, and on the legislative branch bill, we will have a great 
deal of bipartisanship. Certainly, I look forward to that vote. I look 
forward to the debate and discussion over those. But the first thing we 
have to do is pass the rule, so, again, I urge my colleagues to pass 
this.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 557 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 5. 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. 
     1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage. 
     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 and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     the Workforce. 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. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1010.


        THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 189, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 184]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     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
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     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
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell

[[Page H3308]]


     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     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--189

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     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
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     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
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Brown (FL)
     Cicilline
     Gutieerrez
     Harper
     Lewis
     Meeks
     Nolan
     Nunnelee
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Schwartz
     Stockman

                              {time}  1339

  Messrs. MORAN, HIMES, TAKANO, and BARBER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present and voting on rollcall 
vote No. 184 (Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule 
providing for consideration of H.R. 4486) I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 184 I was at a funeral in 
my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________