[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.
____________________