[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5259-H5265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4800, AGRICULTURE, RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4457,
AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2014; AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4453, S CORPORATION PERMANENT TAX RELIEF ACT OF
2014
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 616 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 616
Resolved, That (a) 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. 4800) making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies programs 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. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived.
(b) During consideration of the bill for amendment--
(1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in
paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in
paragraph (2);
(2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate; and
(3) 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.
(c) 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. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4457) to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend
increased expensing limitations, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill,
modified by the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4453) to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the
reduced recognition period for built-in gains of S
corporations. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and
Means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of
a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
113-46 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
{time} 1230
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to 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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 616 provides for consideration of
three important bills. The first, H.R. 4800, the Agriculture
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, will ensure continued
operations for those Federal agencies responsible for monitoring the
health and safety of our food and drug supplies. H.R. 4457, America's
Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, and H.R. 4453, the Permanent S
Corporation Built-in Gains Recognition Period Act of 2014, are two
critical pieces of tax legislation that will give certainty to the
small business community, making permanent two pieces of our Tax Code
which Congress has had to continually renew annually for decades.
Making these tax credits permanent will allow businesses to look out
for more than a year ahead and to actually evaluate their economic
situations, allowing for those businesses to make staffing and
investment decisions for the long term rather than just the short term.
The rule before us today provides for a modified open rule for H.R.
4800. This allows all Members to offer any amendments to the bill that
they may choose. The Speaker is committed to completing as many
appropriations bills under regular order as possible.
The rule before us formalizes the same unanimous consent agreement
that was entered into during the consideration of the CJS
appropriations bill, which streamlines the debate, providing for 10
minutes of debate on every amendment offered on the bill. However, in
no way does this rule restrict Members from offering any and all
amendments to the underlying bill.
The rule further provides for the consideration of both H.R. 4457,
America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, and H.R. 4453, the
Permanent S Corporation Built-in Gains Recognition Period Act of 2014,
both under a closed rule. By bringing these two bills here today,
Members will be allowed to debate the policy of each of these tax
provisions individually rather than as a single omnibus tax extender
legislation hurriedly passed at the end of the year that would not
allow Members to weigh in on each separate extender as this process
does.
[[Page H5260]]
H.R. 4800, the Agriculture and Related Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2015, provides almost $21 billion for the department agencies
funded in the bill. This is funded at the same level as fiscal year
2014 and $457 million above the President's request. The bill provides
critical funding for agricultural research; animal and plant health;
conservation programs; the Farm Service Agency; rural development,
including infrastructure and food safety inspection; the Food and Drug
Administration; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; and the food
and nutrition programs, including child nutrition, the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, and WIC, the program for women, infants,
and children.
Of particular importance to the work I have been involved with on the
Energy and Commerce Committee, the agriculture appropriations bill
provides over $2.5 billion in funding to the Food and Drug
Administration. In addition, the bill allows for the collection of user
fees cumulatively, amounting to overall discretionary funding of $4.5
billion in the FDA.
These dollars serve an important mission. From drug and device
approval to food safety, the Food and Drug Administration is at the
regulatory forefront of protecting the Nation's health, but it also
acts as the doorway for new treatments and cures. From basic research
to cutting-edge treatments, America has led the way in opening new
fields of discovery and taking medicine to boundaries that I could not
have imagined during my medical training or career, yet we have barely
scratched the surface of medical breakthroughs that are over the
horizon. And believe it or not, there are only hundreds of treatments
for diseases that afflict us and thousands still without any treatment
at all, let alone a cure.
Will the United States continue to be the home for the latest
inventions? If the answer to that is yes, the Food and Drug
Administration will be a key part of the future.
Patients and innovators are on the front lines in the fight against
diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer, yet their voices are not always
heard. Bureaucratic rules have stood in the way of innovation. Some
estimates show that medical devices may be approved almost 4 years
earlier in Europe than in the U.S.
In 2012, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology recommended ``encouraging innovation'' as part of the FDA's
mission statement in order to ensure that the FDA understood its role
in helping new innovative treatments reach patients.
However, the true impact of the medical device, pharmaceutical,
biologic, and generic drug industries in the United States is that they
are partners in providing our physicians and practitioners with the
tools that they need to prevent disease and alleviate human suffering.
The Food and Drug Administration must have the infrastructure and
programs in place to ensure all innovations are dealt with in a fashion
that ensures safety for the patient, as well as a straightforward and
predictable and streamlined approval process. The Food and Drug
Administration can continue to streamline the approval process of
single-molecule drugs with which they have the most regulatory
experience, but if we can't handle the fundamentals, then we have got a
big problem.
Congress has taken several bipartisan actions in the last few years
to break down the barriers to health innovation, and the Food and Drug
Administration will and has seen changes as a result. The funding
provided will continue to move these reforms along, but as report
language notes, there is a great deal of work that remains to be done.
For the good of patients and to retain our global leadership and the
economic benefits that come with it, it is time to breathe new life
into the life sciences sector. As a physician, I understand the
importance of ensuring that the government has the resources to lead to
the next generation of treatments in the 21st century while also
ensuring that those treatments are safe and effective. The bill will
ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has the scientific and
medical expertise that they need when reviewing products utilizing
emerging science by providing adequate resources in a challenging
fiscal environment.
After the successful passage of the farm bill this year, the next
step in that process is to fund those programs. H.R. 4800 achieves that
goal.
And I will add, I was disappointed to see that the Healthy Food
Financing Initiative, to bring grocery stores and fresh food to
underserved communities, was not funded in this appropriations bill
even after the House resoundingly defeated an amendment to strip the
program from the farm bill, showing that this body overwhelmingly
supports this initiative. I understand that an amendment to fix this
oversight will be offered during consideration of the bill, and I hope
that something can be worked out.
The two tax bills before us today are, again, critical to give small
businesses stability and the ability to look beyond the end of each
calendar year in making decisions for their companies. Extending these
provisions today will be a boost to our economy.
H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2014, would
make permanent a provision within the Tax Code that allows annual
investments of depreciable business property up to $500,000 to be
expensed. Further, computer software and rules for the expensing of
qualified real property--leasehold improvement, restaurant and retail
improvement property--can also be written off as well.
The present tax system harms investment in many ways. One of the most
important is that, unlike other expenses, businesses must deduct
capital expenses--such as for business equipment--over many years
rather than the year the expense is incurred. This raises the cost of
capital and reduces investment. H.R. 4457 would go a long way to
reverse this trend.
Likewise, the other two tax extenders that we are voting on today
deal with S corporations or pass-through corporations. These
corporations elect not to pay any Federal corporate taxes and, instead,
pass corporate income, losses, and deductions and credits through to
their shareholders.
H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-in Gains Recognition
Period Act of 2014, makes permanent an expired tax break that would
enable businesses set up S corporations to shrink the window that they
have to hold built-in gains from 10 years to 5.
H.R. 4454, the Permanent S Corporation Charitable Contributions Act
of 2014, would make permanent the tax rule requiring an adjustment to
the basis of a shareholder's stock in an S corporation if the
corporation makes tax-deductible charitable donations.
Recently, the House passed a permanent tax credit for corporate
research and development. Sixty-two Democrats voted against the
measure. Their reasoning, as far as I can tell, was not against the
policy, but it was the fact that the measure was not offset. However,
offsets are something in Congress that we need when we are creating new
programs or allocating money not previously appropriated, essentially
making the American people pay more in taxes. Offsets are unnecessary
and not needed when, in fact, we are shielding the American people from
being taxed.
Moreover, we heard last night in the Rules Committee, and I suspect
we will hear it again today on the floor, about the fact that the two
tax-related bills before us today in this rule are not offset. Congress
only needs to pay for tax credits if one subscribes to the belief that
all money in the country--all money in the country--belongs first to
the government rather than the people. I reject this mind-set. Congress
does not need to justify or offset not taking more money from the
American people; Congress needs to justify and pay for policies that
take money from the American people.
Indeed, every member of the Rules Committee on the minority side has
voted at least three times to extend these very provisions without
having any sort of offset. President Obama, himself, signed those three
extensions of these provisions into law, all done without offsets.
Senator Wyden, who has been working on a larger tax extender bill in
the Senate has included the same PAYGO language that is included in
these bills before us in this legislation. To make hay about this
issue, which is truly much ado about nothing, is to play politics with
taxpayers and our economy, and the Republican majority in this House
will not play along.
[[Page H5261]]
In the absence of a larger, comprehensive tax reform package,
permanent extenders like these are common sense. They bring back
stability and certainty to businesses that are constantly waiting at
the end of every calendar year to see if Congress will retroactively
act to provide that tax relief.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, the House will adopt yet another closed rule for
these two tax extender measures, which will cross a new Rubicon, a new
threshold. We are going to break the record for the most closed rules
considered by a Congress ever, and we still have 7 months to go.
The graphic that I am holding illustrates that--that we have the most
closed Congress ever, which allows, among other things, that we don't
deal with immigration reform, we don't deal with the minimum wage, we
don't deal with unemployment insurance, we don't deal with universal
gun background checks, we don't deal with dealing with banning assault
weapons. This is a closed Congress.
This may sound like inside baseball, but it is much more than just a
procedural agreement. I have seen a lot of rules serving nearly 10
years now on the Rules Committee, but this is a new one. This rule
limits debate during the appropriations process. It deems passage of a
provision to ignore the deficit that this legislation will create, and
it sets an all-time record, as I have shown, for closed rules. We
managed to do this yesterday and now have it on the floor all in one
rule.
Congress has, as I have said, many important issues it needs to take
up, including the things I have shown and reiterate now: immigration
reform, raising the minimum wage, and extending unemployment insurance.
2.5 million people in this country are without unemployment
insurance. If we were to pass it, it would create 200,000 jobs, and we
stand around here and talk about creating jobs all the time.
Closed rules prevent the House from working its will on these
measures. That is the way it appears that leadership, what is left of
it, wants it to be.
My friends do make some Democratic amendments in order at times. Both
parties have used closed rules when they have been in control, and that
is true. That is the prerogative of the party controlling the House.
But you can read these closed rules like a roadmap of my friends'
priorities. In general, the only amendments made in order are those
that are expected either to pass or fail along party lines. Over 30
House Republicans and 64 percent of Republican voters polled support
immigration reform, but we can't get a vote. Where is the immigration
reform bill? Where is the measure that will allow for us to answer many
of the problems that this country is confronted with in reference to
immigration reform?
This week, as I have indicated, nearly 3 million Americans have lost
emergency unemployment insurance since it expired in December, but we
can't get a vote here on the House of Representatives' floor.
The Voting Rights Act needs to be reformed in order to protect
American voters, but we can't get a vote in the people's House.
Leadership uses closed rules to prevent the House from working its will
because they are worried about undermining their message, more worried
about it than actually legislating.
Today's tax extenders are a perfect example of how these heavy-handed
tactics help the chosen few, but leave everyone else without recourse.
There are at least 50 other tax extenders that we could have taken into
consideration, but no, we choose these six because that is your agenda.
Dozens of other provisions that expire at the end of 2017 and several
others scheduled to expire at the end of this year have been skipped
over in favor of these six extenders favored by businesses that are
pretty substantial, and not necessarily the big corporations but many
of the large S corporations.
My friends across the aisle have passed up the chance--would you
believe this?--to renew the work opportunity tax credit, which helps
veterans get back to work, as well as the new markets tax credit, which
helps revitalize communities.
How do you do that? They have chosen to ignore renewable energy tax
credits and tax credits to help working parents pay for child care. How
about that? They have decided there is no reason to extend deductions
for teachers' out-of-pocket expenses, qualified tuition, mortgage
insurance premiums, or State and local taxes, a deduction that is
critical for Floridians and the people that I represent.
These six extenders will be the only extenders that the House votes
on because these are the priorities of my friends across the aisle,
priorities that may solidify your message, my friends, particularly
your message with your base--and evidently you are confused about that
particular matter--but you are more interested in them and assuring
that you do nothing to help hardworking Americans.
You are going to use the power of the closed rule to ensure that no
other provisions get a vote, and you are going to become the most
closed Congress ever, disallowing immigration reform, disallowing a
minimum wage increase. There are States that are giving a realistic
minimum wage increase to people. You tell me, how it is that people
live on $7.35 an hour? Many of us have been to food shelters and seen
people that are working, many of us have seen people that are living in
shelters, working families living in shelters, and we won't even bring
a measure here. Are you afraid to just say ``yes'' or ``no'' whether or
not Americans ought to have an increase in their minimum wage at the
Federal level?
You let 2\1/2\ million people don't have unemployment insurance,
can't meet their obligations, and we are not willing to help them, and
you tell me that you will increase--you talk all the time about the
deficit, so you are going to increase the deficit with some mumbo jumbo
about money if it is not in the hands of, and disallow people that we
know, if they were to receive unemployment insurance compensation, that
they would spend all of that money and that it would, in fact, create
jobs, and it would sustain small businesses if we were to do that.
One presenter in the House yesterday, outstanding in his
presentation, a friend from the other side, pointed out that he had
come from a hardscrabble life and that his father one time had been on
unemployment insurance. I said to him, and I believe it to be true,
that you just proved my point. And I asked him did his daddy get a job
after he was on unemployment insurance. And his answer was, yes, and I
knew that is what it would be. Many people who are on unemployment
insurance today, if we were to give them a chance, they would get a
job. Get a life, Republicans, give people a chance.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute for the purpose of
a response.
In the 111th Congress, the final 2 years of Representative Pelosi's
time as Speaker, 2009 to 2010, this House never considered a single
bill under an open rule. Let me state that again: 2009 to 2010, the
111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi was Speaker, the House never considered
a single bill under an open rule.
Mr. Speaker, I would submit, that is the definition of a closed
process.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
My friend on the other side of the aisle may try to change the
subject. Do that if you like. But I ask the gentleman: Is this a new
record for closed rules or not? And I answer rhetorically because it
is. And I don't deny that Democrats have used closed rules. I said it
in my opening remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas, Judge Lloyd Doggett, my good friend.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, across America, for 30 million
schoolchildren implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act is
working. Schools are literally stepping up to the plate with a plate of
healthier food. Indeed, for school lunches in Texas, 99 percent
[[Page H5262]]
of Texas school districts are successfully serving meals that meet
strong nutritional standards. In most of the schools I visit, 99
percent is an A-plus.
First Lady Michelle Obama has provided impressive leadership in
getting students, families, all of us, to pay a little more attention
to food quality, to encourage kids to be more physically active, to get
moving, and to grow up healthy. Active, healthy kids do better in
school, and they grow up to be more productive citizens who can help in
moving our country forward.
Today's bill presents the question of whether we are to wave good-bye
with a waiver to healthy school lunch standards. This bill that we are
about to consider is not the only place where unhealthy congressional
action lurks. At the very same moment that the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee was weakening school nutrition standards
with a waiver, the House Ways and Means Committee, on which I serve,
approved a bill to expand a tax subsidy for ``apparently wholesome
food.'' That sounds good. The only problem is that the statutory
definition of ``apparently wholesome food'' does not actually limit
itself to the wholesome. It includes Halloween candy, Twinkies, Pop
Rocks, stale potato chips, and other expired junk food, all of which
receive a taxpayer subsidy. I think that is a little hard to stomach.
In a Nation where one-third of our children are overweight or obese,
we should neither be subsidizing junk food nor repackaging healthy
school meal standards into less healthy meals.
We are already spending in America an estimated $245 billion every
year on diabetes. Rates of dietary-related Type 2 diabetes are
skyrocketing among children and young adults. Since many of our
children consume up to half of their daily calories at school through
the school lunch and school breakfast programs, their health depends
upon the nutritional quality of the food they are served.
Today, we should not take a giant step backwards. Let's join against
this push to lower standards for our Nation's children. They deserve
the healthiest future possible.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Returning briefly--before I yield to my good friend--to the subject
of open and/or closed rules, this is what Speaker Boehner promised
right here in this Chamber in his own words:
I offer a commitment: Openness, once a tradition of this institution,
but increasingly scarce in recent decades, will be the new standard.
You will always have the right to a robust debate in an open process
that allows you to represent your constituents, to make your case,
offer alternatives and be heard.
It is unfortunate that my friends on the other side of the aisle
campaigned telling the country how open and transparent they were going
to be, and then when they do the opposite and are called out on it, it
is just more excuses.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question I am going to offer
an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4582, the Bank on Students
Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. Mr. Tierney, my good friend, authored
that bill to help millions of people lower their student loan debt. The
bill would allow borrowers to refinance Federal and private student
loans to the lowest rates that are currently available to new
borrowers.
To discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a distinguished gentleman, my friend and
colleague.
{time} 1300
Mr. TIERNEY. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the House to act on responsible
legislation that I have introduced that would help tens of millions of
college students, graduates, parents, and middle class families all
across the country refinance their existing loans to the same low rate
offered to new borrowers in the student loan program.
As the President said earlier this week when he voiced support for
this bill, this should be a no-brainer. Homeowners and small businesses
are so often able to refinance their debts, there is no reason at all
that students and parents shouldn't be able to do the same.
Refinancing would be a significant financial help to these students
and their parents. In fact, a recent analysis by the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service showed that a middle class undergraduate
student with an average loan debt would save more than $4,000 over the
life of that loan. A typical graduate student would save more than
$2,500, and a typical parent who borrowed to pay for their child's
education would save $3,500 or more.
As my colleagues know, these savings would be invested right back
into the economy. Last year, the Center for American Progress estimated
that refinancing of just some of these Federal loans would pump $21
billion into the economy.
That is because these people are going to be able to save $40 to $100
a month--thousands over the course of their loan--and they have
expenses and necessities for which they have to pay.
Our bill is a good deal for taxpayers. Last week, the Congressional
Budget Office scored our bill as generating $72.5 billion in savings
over 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, more and more constituents are writing my office,
emailing, posting on my Facebook page, and even stopping me on the
street to talk about stories about how their children are buried in
student loan debt. Two days ago, I received an email from a concerned
mother in my district.
This is what she had to say: she and her husband followed the rules
and have been able to own their own home and support two children up to
adulthood, but she feels that her daughter would not be able to do the
same, as she currently owes $60,000 in college loans.
Her interest rates vary from 6.5 percent to 8.5 percent. She is
drowning in her own debt, and she is only 24 years of age.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. TIERNEY. I appreciate that from my colleague.
The reason this mother supports the bill is that she knows it is
going to help her daughter pay her loans in a reasonable way, while
pursuing other goals this life.
This is really, Mr. Speaker, about whose side are you on. Are we on
the side of special interests and allowing them to continue tax favors,
while middle class Americans end up lugging around this heavy burden of
debt?
I am on the side of that concerned mother and her daughter and others
in this country who are concerned about their children's future.
Let's bring this bill to the floor for a vote.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to my friend
from Texas that I am prepared to close. I have no further speakers at
this time, and so I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is not all doom and gloom over here. There are
provisions in the agriculture appropriation measure that I support.
I appreciate the report language in support of the United States
Department of Agriculture's pollinator programs. I, along with others,
have been leaders in bringing the subject to the attention of Congress,
something of vital interest to all of this Nation.
I have been teased an awful lot about being the ``bee man'' because I
bring up the pollinator issue all the time, but the fact of the matter
is, if we don't have bees, we are not going to have food.
I also appreciate the provisions related to citrus greening, which
has been devastating to Florida citrus growers, as well as those
provisions in this measure that address rural housing.
I represent Belle Glade; South Bay; Canal Point; and Pahokee,
Florida; and places where rural housing is really important, but I,
along with all of my colleagues--particularly Joe Garcia, Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, and Mario Diaz-Balart--have raised the issues with
reference to citrus greening. The whole south Florida delegation has
been involved in that particular area.
[[Page H5263]]
I grew up in the citrus area. I saw the early-on stages of greening.
If we don't do something about this particular problem--and this farm
appropriations does deal with some of it--then we may have no citrus
coming from the State of Florida.
There are a limited number of days left on our legislative calendar,
and we have many miles to go before we, as a Congress, have delivered
on our obligation to help all Americans.
We absolutely have an obligation to businesspeople, but we also have
an obligation to help veterans get work; an obligation to ease the
burden on teachers who use their own money to support their students--
our students; and an obligation to address forthrightly important
issues, including immigration reform and raising the minimum wage and
extending unemployment insurance.
We should stop standing around here and thinking that we are doing
something when we offer a moment of silence, which is right for victims
who have died of gun violence and the grief that is coming through all
of those families. You hear them begging for us to do something.
We know that we can't solve all of those problems, but at least we
could give them some assurance that we are trying to have universal
background checks and that we are willing to ban assault weapons. Why
would anybody want an assault weapon, other than a police officer or
military person, and why should we permit them to be in their hands?
We won't bring those measures down here to the floor, and we do so at
our peril.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
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, vote ``no'' on the underlying
bills, and certainly vote ``no'' on this record-setting rule for closed
rules, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, first off, I just want to reference something on Speaker
John Boehner's Web site.
John Boehner took the Speaker's gavel in January of 2011,
promising to run a more open U.S. House of Representatives
than his predecessor. In the 3\1/2\ years since then, Speaker
Boehner has made good on that pledge by allowing more
amendments and a steady stream of ``open rules,'' while the
Democratic-controlled United States Senate, under Majority
Leader Harry Reid, has gone in the other direction.
One congressional expert calls open rules, which allow
Members to freely offer amendments of essentially any nature
during the consideration of a given bill, ``essential for
fair consideration of legislation on the House floor.
Under Boehner's leadership, Members on both sides of the
aisle have been allowed to offer significantly more
amendments, and the House has operated under far more open
rules than were allowed under the previous Democratic-
controlled House.
The final years of the Pelosi-run House were a tour de
force in closed government. During the final 2 years of
Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never
considered a single bill under an open rule. Some Members of
Congress served their entire House careers under Speaker
Pelosi without ever operating under an open rule.
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of so-called immigration reform, the
administration has done more to distance and set back any policy in
that direction.
Why do I say that? The reason is the unintended effects of their
policies to send a message worldwide to those that come here by any
method possible, and we will not prosecute, we will not send you back.
As a consequence, we have got an issue on the border of our State in
Texas that is, at the same time, both heartbreaking and frightening,
with underage children literally being shoved across the border.
Mr. Speaker, what does it say when an 8-year-old child can cross our
border illegally? Who else is getting in, if 8-year-olds are able to
come across this porous border that the administration has opened up?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURGESS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I share your concerns as you expressed them
with reference to the unaccompanied young people coming to our country,
and I don't make any quarrel with you, but I would highlight the fact
that it is believed by some that many of the places they are coming
from--El Salvador, Guatemala, and Central America--the kids are running
because of fright.
I remind you that they already have TSP, and we did that quite some
time ago for those Central American countries. We did it, rightly,
then.
I just offer that for information, and I thank my colleague for
yielding.
Mr. BURGESS. Reclaiming my time, I would just point out that those
conditions the gentleman referenced that might cause a child to be
frightened existed 4 years ago, existed 3 years ago, but there has been
a dramatic change in the past 2 years.
I believe that change is directly attributable to the policies of the
administration when they went around the United States Congress to
unilaterally alter the United States immigration laws, which
specifically, in the Constitution, is a legislative branch requirement.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of three
important bills: H.R. 4800, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2015; H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of
2014; and H.R. 4453, the Permanent S Corporation Built-In Gains
Recognition Period Act for 2014.
The rule is fair and important for us to move forward on the debate
on these pieces of legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 616 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. 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.
4582) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide
for the refinancing of certain Federal student loans, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce and the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4582.
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,
[[Page H5264]]
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. BURGESS. 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 224,
nays 194, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 298]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--194
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
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
Gutieerrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velaazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Bishop (UT)
Cantor
Collins (GA)
LaMalfa
Lankford
Matheson
McGovern
McHenry
Miller, Gary
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Rangel
Ryan (OH)
{time} 1341
Mr. HINOJOSA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. HARTZLER changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227,
noes 189, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 299]
AYES--227
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
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
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
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
[[Page H5265]]
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--189
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Caardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
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
Gutieerrez
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
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Saanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
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
Cantor
Collins (GA)
Denham
Grijalva
LaMalfa
Lankford
Matheson
McGovern
McHenry
Miller, Gary
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Rangel
Ryan (OH)
Scott (VA)
{time} 1348
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________