[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.

                          ____________________