[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 112 (Thursday, July 17, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6357-H6363]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4719, FIGHTING HUNGER INCENTIVE ACT
OF 2014
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 670 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 670
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4719) to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend
and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food
inventory. 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
113-51 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). 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, House Resolution 670 provides for the
consideration of a package of tax deductions for charitable
contributions to organizations in the form of excess food inventory and
conservation easements, as well as authorizing tax-free distributions
from individual retirement accounts, lowering the excise tax on private
foundations, and extending the date by which taxpayers can make
charitable contributions to be considered for a tax deduction. This is
a package of policies, each of which has been supported by the
overwhelming majorities of both parties.
The rule before us today provides for a closed rule for H.R. 4719,
which is the standard rule for tax bills. Of course, the minority will
have its customary motion to recommit. This is a straightforward rule.
H.R. 4719, the America Gives More Act of 2014, will benefit the
countless numbers of Americans who rely on and utilize charitable
organizations in communities throughout the country. A great incentive
for many Americans to contribute to those organizations or to
contribute in a greater capacity than they otherwise might are the tax
deductions that have been made available by the Federal Government.
Congress, long ago, decided it was sound public policy to incentivize
charitable giving, encouraging citizens to open their pocketbooks and
lend a hand to those less fortunate--and Americans are a generous
people. Moreover and importantly, today's bill makes these tax
provisions permanent so that Americans will not have to worry from year
to year whether the tax deductions on which they have come to rely will
be available to them that year.
Recently, the House passed a permanent tax credit for corporate
research and development. There were 62 Democrats who voted against the
measure. Their reasoning, as far as I can tell, was not against the
policy but of maintaining that the measure was not paid for. However,
pay-fors are something in Congress that we need when we are creating
new programs or are allocating money not previously appropriated,
essentially making the American people pay more in taxes. The offsets
are unnecessary and not needed when we are actually shielding the
American people from having their money taken in the first place in the
form of a tax.
Moreover, we heard on Tuesday night while in the Rules Committee
markup of today's rule--and I suspect we will hear some about it
today--the fact that the two tax-related bills before us today in the
rule are not paid for. Congress only needs to pay for a tax credit if
one subscribes to the belief that all money in our country belongs
first to the government, then to the people. I reject this mindset.
Congress does not need to justify or pay for not taking more money from
the American people. Congress needs to justify and, thus, pay for
policies that take money from the American people.
Mr. Speaker, even if you did subscribe to the notion that all money
in this country, first and foremost, belongs to the government and that
the government has to pay for allowing Americans to keep their money,
the exact provisions contained in the America Gives More Act have
traditionally not been offset, and Democrats on the Ways and Means
Committee, on the Rules Committee, and Democratic leadership have often
voted in favor of these same provisions in un-offset legislation in
previous years.
In the absence of a larger, comprehensive tax reform package,
permanent extenders like these make sense. They bring back stability
and certainty to businesses that are constantly having to wait to see
if Congress will, in fact, act. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. The legislation
consists of a package of five bills previously reported by the Ways and
Means Committee, which would add an estimated $16 billion to the
deficit over the next 10 years.
Like every Member of this body, I strongly support charitable giving.
I tout the fact in the Rules Committee frequently that I am proud of
the fact that I work directly with three food pantries--one that I am
extremely proud of that works with grandmothers and grandfathers who
are taking care of their children's children and who find great needs.
I might add that that
[[Page H6358]]
particular charity has seen a diminution, a diminishing, of charitable
giving. I might add additionally to that, when I look across the board
in my community, I find that charitable giving is down, and I think
that is commensurate with the kind of economy that we are in.
I applaud Americans who donate what they can to the causes they care
about. I would go as far as to say that I support many of the measures
that are in this bill. However, in its present form, I cannot support
it. The Republican majority has divided what used to be a complete
extenders package into smaller parts, some of which will be debated
here today and some of which, I predict, will never reach the floor for
debate, certainly not a vote. My friends have managed to make
a traditionally nonpartisan and noncontroversial issue both partisan
and controversial. The provisions we are debating are not paid for and,
yet, are made permanent.
I am afraid that this bill is part and parcel in a pattern of what I
perceive as reckless, irresponsible behavior on the part of the
majority. Republican inconsistency on fiscal responsibility and the
deficit is stunning. Whenever we are considering a bill they like, they
are happy to ignore the deficit and waive all of the rules that enforce
fiscal discipline; but whenever Republicans don't like a proposal, they
hide behind budget rules to block it. On the one hand, they have
blocked or delayed everything from extending unemployment insurance, to
an SGR doc fix, to emergency hurricane relief, demanding that they are
fully offset. Yet, when it comes to tax credits, they waive their own
budgeting rules, as they are doing here, and run up the deficit as they
are doing here. This bill alone will add an additional $16 billion to
the deficit over 10 years. These are the people who continuously decry
the fact that we have deficits, and these are the people who continue
to say that they are spendthrifts in the sense that they are taking
care of the budget. That is just the beginning.
Today, the Ways and Means Committee has reported 12 unpaid-for tax
extenders at a cost of $614 billion over 10 years. The House has passed
five at a cost of $518 billion over 10 years. I might add this is
budget hocus-pocus. It was referred to as ``voodoo economics'' at
another point in time. For example, you take something like we did with
the highway trust bill earlier, and you pay for it. You spend the money
in 6 months, and then you pay for it over a 10-year period of time,
which substantially mitigates against what their intent is rather than
to do what is needed, and that is a highway infrastructure bill that
will give our Nation reassurance with reference to construction
measures and make sure our bridges are not falling down and that our
roads are safe to drive on.
Look at the bill that we were dealing with last week. My friends
threw away another $287 billion, or at least they proposed to. Much of
this stuff isn't going anywhere, but they proposed to throw away
another $287 billion on an extenders package just like this one. Let me
repeat: $287 billion. Now we are going to add another $16 billion to
that number. It is as if we are looking for new ways to be
dysfunctional.
Instead of creating a stable economy, they are picking and choosing
their favorite provisions and are extending them piece by piece. Rather
than reforming our Tax Code, they are making it up as they go along.
Assuredly, all of us have great respect for our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle who have that awesome responsibility of finding the
ways and the means to fund this government, and I for one--and I am
sure I speak for many--have great respect for Dave Camp, the chairman
of that committee.
At the beginning of this session, Chairman Camp proposed tax reform.
I might have agreed or disagreed with an awful lot of it, but inside
his own Conference, he could not get people who would support
meaningful tax reform. Instead, now, in refutation to much of what he
had put forward by denying some of these 60-plus extensions--he had
said that many of them should not be in the measure--they come and
cherry-pick and get the ones that they want and put them here rather
than reform this Tax Code.
Is there anybody in this country, in this Congress, in the House, or
in the Senate who believes that the Tax Code is fair and simple for
everybody--business and/or Americans? No. They are making it up as they
go along--a tax extender here, a tax extender there, something I like
here, and I don't like that over there.
Let me tell you what we should be doing. We should be passing bills
that create jobs in this country.
{time} 0930
We should be repairing our infrastructure, and all of us know this.
When I came to Congress in 1992, then-President Bill Clinton
identified--and we agreed--that there were 14,000 bridges in America
that were in need of repair, but now, what we find is that there are
substantially more bridges, and some have fallen down in that period of
time, and yet, we are piecemealing the transportation issue, kicking
the can down the road.
I commented in the Rules Committee some time back, this kicking the
can down the road concept, if it were an Olympic sport, then Congress
would not only get gold and bronze and silver, they would also get
aluminum because they are real good at kicking the can.
We should be passing bills that tackle comprehensive immigration
reform. Is there anybody, including all of the don't come here people
that are out there shouting at children--in many instances--and mothers
and people who don't speak our language, that have undertaken the most
unreasonable, for any of us, journey to try to get to a better life for
themselves--and people standing there, shouting at them, rather than
collecting ourselves as a sensible country--of immigrants, I might
add--and allow, among other things that we try to do, not just
comprehensive immigration reform, indeed, we should do border security.
We have to have clarity, not only for those who may seek to come
here, but for all of us. We need clarity as it pertains to immigration.
Will they put it on the floor just for a vote? No. It will not
happen, and yet, we will see this piecemeal, and we will see this back
and forth some time next week.
The President proposes $3.7 billion. Someone on the other side said
that is too much money. The President says we need more judges and more
lawyers, and we need lawyers on both sides I maintain, and yet, we find
ourselves in the position of not being able to do anything and not
doing it hurriedly enough.
We have this crisis on our border, which doesn't even come close to
rivaling the many issues that are developing in the world, from Ukraine
to Israel to Yemen, back across the board to Syria, and countless other
places, our relationships are in jeopardy, and all of it is placed at
the hands, if you let these people tell it, of Barack Obama.
Many of the issues that are developing developed over periods of
time, and they largely did so because this Congress does not have the
courage to stand up and do the things that are vitally necessary for
all of America, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal. The
needs are great, and we are doing very little of anything at all.
We have 10 more days until we go on recess to campaign, and when we
do go on recess to campaign, that will be for the whole month of
August. Then we will come back here a few weeks in September, and we
will be gone the whole month of October.
What in the world would stop us then from having the time and the
necessity to sit down together in a bipartisan way and come up with
what is needed for immigration reform in this country?
We have 3.3 million people--after the expiration of the unemployment
insurance measures in this country in the month of December, we now
number 3.3 million people out of work, in the cold, and that has cost
the economy more than $10 billion.
Of those 3.3 million people, I remind my friends who stand up here
with their patriotic notions that they espouse, and I believe they
believe in our troops. We are fond of saying that around here.
I believe they believe that we should be secure, as do I, with
reference to our military, but 300,000 of those people that are
unemployed are veterans, not to mention all of the problems at the
veterans hospitals that we need to attend to, rather than finger-
pointing
[[Page H6359]]
and trying to find measures to beat each other down, rather than try to
lift America up.
House Republicans have found time to sue President Obama for doing
his job, but we haven't found time to pass these important bills.
I said humorously, before I began to hear it often, that if President
Obama is going to be sued by the Speaker for doing something, then I
want to participate in the lawsuit against the Speaker for doing
nothing.
We can try to appease the most extreme end of the Republican Party,
but we can't pass the laws that address the challenges facing Americans
all across this Nation, and for this dereliction of duty, maybe
somebody should consider when we are talking about a lawsuit--what I
said humorously--really considering suing this institution and its
Speaker for not doing those things that are a few that I have
identified.
In yesterday's hearing in the Rules Committee, I ended my remarks--
and we had outstanding witnesses, experts in this area, ranging from
Elizabeth Foley, from Florida International University; to Jonathan
Turley, from George Washington University; Simon Lazarus, from the
Constitutional group; and Walter Dellinger--all of them--at least three
of them being extremely experienced in the subject matter and each of
them addressing the subject of standing, as I did, in asking them
questions at different times.
Most of us know that this lawsuit is not likely to go anywhere, and
at some point, all of the witnesses agreed that there are challenges
ahead with reference to this lawsuit, and all of them knew and know
that there is absolutely no precedent for this action, none.
There is a case, McClure v. Carter, that has some similarities, but
even that one did not cross the threshold that is needed. I did end my
comments by saying that I was being partisan, and I will end this
portion of my comments by saying I am being partisan.
These are the people that for the 52 years, nearly, that I am a
lawyer, that have argued against frivolous lawsuits. If there was ever
a frivolous lawsuit, then the one that is proposed to be filed by the
Speaker of this House gives frivolous new meaning. It is indeed just
that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on this matter, the
administration, as it is wont to do, filed administration policy. We
refer to them in our committees and around the House as a SAP.
What the administration said is the following:
The administration supports measures that enhance
nonprofits, philanthropic organizations, and faith-based and
other community organizations in their many roles, including
as a safety net for those most in need, an economic engine
for job creation, a tool for environmental conservation that
encourages land protections for current and future
generations, and an incubator of innovation to foster
solutions to some of the Nation's toughest challenges. The
President's budget includes a number of proposals that would
enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many
individuals.
I am going to come back to this, but before we go forward, if we
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule
that would give Members a second opportunity this week to consider
reversing the damage done by the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court
decision.
No employer should have the right to limit the health choices of its
employees, male or female. It is pure discrimination when 99 percent of
women in this country have used some form of birth control during their
lifetime, but to now have to literally go through unreasonable measures
to simply secure the fundamental health care they need.
To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, our three women Justices
stood unanimously against the Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case.
They sit on the highest court in the Nation, and by no coincidence,
the three women's dissent is representative of what I heard from the
women I talked to in my district.
I asked women at home to send me in three words how they feel about
the Court's decision. This is what they shared with me: Jennifer from
Melrose, sad, disappointing, disturbing; Anna from Framingham,
backwards, scary, hurtful; Jeanine from Waltham, disgusted, wrong,
outraged; Susan from Cambridge, need more Ginsburgs.
The Court's decision to strike down women's access to basic health
care is only the latest in systemic efforts to unwind the progress
women have made.
Why aren't we demanding equal pay for women from our employers,
rather than giving a woman's boss the right to make the most personal
health care decisions for her and her family?
Congress has an obligation to correct this course. The amendment and
the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act makes
certain that a woman's boss does not interfere in her basic health
care. It simply affirms that when the law provides for insurance
companies to cover basic health care for all, all people are entitled
to that health care, period.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr.
Bera), a good friend who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this
body about the outrageous Supreme Court decision, the Hobby Lobby case.
I look at this, not as a Member of Congress, but as a doctor. Now, in
my training, we took an oath. That oath was to put our patients first,
to do good.
My core job as a doctor is to sit with my patients, answer her
questions, talk about the risks and benefits and the various options
that are available, but then to empower my patients to make the
decisions that best fit their lives.
To women, there is no greater decision than when to start a family,
when to become a mother, and that is why protecting those reproductive
rights and reproductive options are so important. That is core to our
oath as physicians, and that is why the Supreme Court's decision on
Hobby Lobby was so outrageous.
We have got to fight against this encroachment of the government or
the Justices in the Supreme Court coming into my exam room and getting
between me and my patients. That is outrageous. It is an affront to
individual liberties. It is an affront to what we do as doctors.
It is not just me speaking. This is doctors all across America. The
American Congress of OB/GYNs calls this ruling outrageous.
{time} 0945
We need to have all options available. But what am I to do now if a
Hobby Lobby employee comes to me as a patient, sits down and says: You
know, I am not ready to start a family at this juncture. I would like
to know what my contraceptive options are; I would like to know what
some of the safest methods are.
Well, IUDs often are 20 times more effective and are extremely safe,
but the Supreme Court has now made that option unavailable for me. They
didn't go to medical school. I did. As a doctor, it is my oath to
provide all those options.
Now, others might say, well, that patient can still choose to get it.
The reason people have health insurance is because they want to have
health care available when it is necessary. What if that patient can't
afford that health care option? For many patients, hourly workers,
often contraception can cost up to $600 a year. They are not able to
afford it. That is why this is such an outrageous decision. We have got
to keep the government and the Supreme Court out of our exam room.
And it is even more personal than that. I am a husband and I am a
father. I want my daughter to grow up in a country where she is in
control of her health care decisions, where she is in control of her
body.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. BERA of California. So as a doctor, as a father of a daughter, I
am
[[Page H6360]]
proud to support the not my boss' business act because it puts patients
back in charge of their health care decisions. We, as a country, prize
individual liberties and individual freedoms above all. So this gives
those decisions back to the patients.
Mr. BURGESS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler), my classmate and good friend.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question in order to bring the Protect Women's Health from
Corporate Interference Act to the floor.
In 1993, I was a leader in passing the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act, or RFRA. If you had told me then that RFRA would one day be used
to allow employers to dictate to employees what preventive health care
they can or cannot use, if you had told me then that I would stand on
the House floor in 2014 fighting to ensure that women have the ability
to make their own most basic health care decisions regardless of their
boss' religious beliefs, I would never have believed it.
We wrote that bill to be a shield to protect an individual's personal
exercise of religious beliefs, not a sword to enable employers to
impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
No matter how sincerely held a religious belief might be, for-profit
employers, like Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood, must not be allowed to
impose their beliefs or that belief on their employees as a means of
denying their employees access to critical preventive health care
services.
I was proud to work with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette)
and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) to introduce this
simple legislation to ensure that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's
mangling of RFRA, employers cannot deny their employees access to
federally mandated health services.
Every woman must have the right to follow her own beliefs and
guidance when making health care choices. This bill simply guarantees
that the boss' beliefs cannot supersede that right.
I was disappointed to see that none of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle voted earlier this week to bring this bill to the
floor. I urge them to stand with us today or else, when they go home
this weekend, to tell the men and women of their districts that their
health care decisions are now going to be made for them by their
bosses, regardless of their own choices, regardless of their own
religious beliefs or the doctor's recommendations; and tell them that
you believe that their boss' religious beliefs must be imposed on them,
notwithstanding their own religious beliefs, which don't count; and
tell them you did nothing to stop this.
This country will not stand for that. We have fought for too long to
preserve the right of all Americans to make their own health care
choices and, I must add, to make their own religious decisions to
refuse to act now.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question,
allow this bill to come to the floor, and send a strong message that
health care choices are not your boss' business and that your religious
beliefs trump your boss' religious beliefs.
Your boss has a right to his beliefs. You have a right to your
beliefs. Government must not allow him to impose his beliefs on you.
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.
I am a proud cosponsor of the measure that was just spoken to, and I
am very pleased that my colleague came here to speak on it.
Rather than read the entirety of the Statement of Administration
Policy at this time, I will submit that statement for the Record.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 4719--America Gives More Act of 2014
(Rep. Reed, R-New York, and 9 cosponsors, July 17, 2014)
The Administration supports measures that enhance non-
profits, philanthropic organizations, and faith-based and
other community organizations in their many roles, including
as a safety net for those most in need, an economic engine
for job creation, a tool for environmental conservation that
encourages land protections for current and future
generations, and an incubator of innovation to foster
solutions to some of the Nation's toughest challenges. The
President's Budget includes a number of proposals that would
enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many
individuals.
However, the Administration strongly opposes House passage
of H.R. 4719, which would permanently extend three current
provisions that offer enhanced tax breaks for certain
donations and add another two similar provisions without
offsetting the cost. If this same, unprecedented approach of
making certain traditional tax extenders permanent without
offsets were followed for the other traditional tax
extenders, it would add $500 billion or more to deficits over
the next ten years, wiping out most of the deficit reduction
achieved through the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2013.
Just two months ago, House Republicans themselves passed a
budget resolution that required offsetting any tax extenders
that were made permanent with other revenue measures.
As with other similar proposals, Republicans are imposing a
double standard by adding to the deficit to continue and
create tax breaks that primarily benefit higher-income
individuals, while insisting on offsetting the proposed
extension of emergency unemployment benefits and the
discretionary funding increases for defense and non-defense
priorities such as research and development in the Bipartisan
Budget Act of 2013. House Republicans also are making clear
their priorities by rushing to make these tax cuts permanent
without offsets even as the House Republican budget
resolution calls for raising taxes on 26 million working
families and students by letting important improvements to
the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and education
tax credits expire.
The Administration wants to work with Congress to make
progress on measures that strengthen America's social sector.
However, H.R. 4719 represents the wrong approach.
If the President were presented with H.R. 4719, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Now, there is something else we need to
discuss about this rule. Once again, we are debating a closed rule.
When I came to Congress, I was listening on the radio. I didn't know
very much about rules. And a part of why Democrats in the majority
lost, in my opinion, was the harangue that was going on on the radio
about closed rules.
Well, I came here, and I wound up on the Rules Committee, and now I
know a little bit about closed rules. I also know that we have set an
all-time record in the history of the United States Congress, for now,
in this particular rule that is before the House of Representatives,
the 65th time this session, we are going to have a closed rule. What
that means, America, is that your Representative on either side will
not have an opportunity to offer an amendment to this measure with
reference to tax extenders. This is the most closed rules that this
Congress has considered ever, and I expect we are not finished yet and
that the number of closed rules will continue to grow.
We started the 113th session with a pledge of transparency and
openness from the Speaker of the House, but that has fallen by the
wayside, and it has done so in historic proportion. Enough already. The
majority should do the responsible thing and bring up bills that
actually matter, bills that will address the many challenges facing
this country, challenges, as I have pointed out before, about our
crumbling infrastructure and, most importantly, creating jobs, even as
it pertains to immigration reform.
Everyone who looks at that measure that says, if we had clear
immigration policy, whether it was dealing with H-1B visas, whether it
was dealing with farmworkers, whatever the measure, that it would
increase our revenue in this country and enhance our overall economic
circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on this
65th closed rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
[[Page H6361]]
Mr. Speaker, let me try to take some of these points in order that we
have heard over the last 45 minutes.
The gentleman talks about tax reform. I hope that means that he is
prepared to join me on H.R. 1040, a measure that would provide a flat
tax to the citizens of the United States. There is no more egregious
function that most of us have to deal with every year than dealing with
the IRS.
Unfortunately, because of the actions of the administration, the IRS
now stands in ill favor with a majority of Americans. The President,
himself, promised in 2013 that he would get to the bottom of the
problems in the IRS and that he would get them corrected. I believe
that he should. This is the agency with which we all have to deal every
year. No one likes the taxman, but it is imperative that the American
people have the confidence in the agency that is tasked with collecting
their taxes.
On the issue of the VA, it is in conference. We will hear from them.
Is the VA going to require a higher appropriation than we gave a few
weeks ago? Perhaps. But I would also like to see the new administrator,
the new Secretary of the VA be able to discharge people from his
employment if they have, in fact, acted in bad faith.
I must have missed the firings that have occurred at the VA amongst
the Senior Executive Service. I am not even talking about political
appointees. I am talking about people who are lifers within the VA who
seem perfectly content to continue business as usual. You are not going
to fix that problem if you just pump more taxpayer money into the
system. I wouldn't disagree that more money may be necessary at the VA,
but we do have to fix the problem that is endemic in the agency if we
don't expect the same result to be clearly evident in 2 or 3 years'
time.
Let me just talk briefly about the issue that came up about the
Supreme Court decision. Unlike Mr. Nadler, I was not here in 1993 and
1994. I was not part of the Congress that passed the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, but many of the same people who wrote and voted for
and defended the Affordable Care Act, the cast of characters is
remarkably similar. In fact, the gentleman from New York, Senator
Schumer, when he was a Member of the House, was, I believe, the lead
sponsor of that, and he is now in the Senate. The majority leader in
the Senate was a ``yes'' vote on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
So this is a law that was written by Democratic sponsors in a
Democratic-controlled House, signed by a Democratic President. How
could they not know? How could they not know of its existence when they
were writing the Affordable Care Act?
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURGESS. Let me continue with this thought, and if there is time,
I will consider yielding to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Now, while they were crafting the Affordable Care Act, they were
fully cognizant of the same restrictions they had written into law in
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Supreme Court simply looked
at the facts and said that a Federal agency--in this case, the
Department of Health and Human Services--in a rulemaking activity
cannot negate a law that was passed by the people's representatives in
the Congress. I think that is as it should be.
If there was anything, there were drafting errors in the Affordable
Care Act. I have spoken about that time and again. But why weren't the
same people who were tasked with writing the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act, why weren't they watchful while they were writing
their own health care law?
Now, let's talk for just a minute about the Hobby Lobby decision. The
first thing--and it is important to stress this--no FDA-approved
contraceptive that was available to women before the decision is
unavailable after the decision. The Court simply said that the
government cannot force a citizen to violate his or her religious
beliefs paying for medicine that a citizen believes takes a life. No
employer before or after Hobby Lobby can prevent a woman from
purchasing any contraceptive that is currently available.
We also heard criticism from the minority that the House was doing
other things than doing its work. I would just point out that the House
is doing its work. Forty jobs bills have passed this House and are
sitting, waiting for activity over in the Senate. And we saw how
quickly the SKILLS Act, after the Senate renamed it and it came back to
the House, how quickly it got to the President's desk. So the fact that
the bills are over there waiting is a problem of the other body. It is
not a problem of the House. The House has been doing its work.
Yesterday we passed the Financial Services Appropriations bill. Mr.
Speaker, I would ask rhetorically: When was the last time that the
House passed the Financial Services Appropriations bill? It was 2007,
the first year that the Democrats had taken over the majority. We
haven't seen an appropriations bill for Financial Services in--what?--5
years' time. This was a landmark achievement yesterday.
Let's look for just a moment at the number of amendments that have
been heard under open rules. On appropriations bills this year, we are
through seven appropriations bills as we sit here in the middle of
July. That is a significant achievement in and of itself. There have
been 395 amendments heard to appropriations bills. That hardly sounds
like a closed process. There have been 210 Republican amendments, 185
Democratic amendments, and that was exclusive of yesterday's passed
appropriations bill.
So I don't think you can rationally make the argument that the House
is not doing its work and that, as we go through the appropriations
process, it is not open.
{time} 1000
I have some other things that I want to say about the deficit, but I
will be happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding for just a moment
because this is a colleague from Texas, and there are many issues that
we have agreed on with respect to Texas.
I might say to you that I am a strong proponent of religious liberty.
You had mentioned Hobby Lobby in terms of some of the issues you were
discussing. I think I have stood fast on that question. I only raise
the point, and you made the point that anything that was approved pre-
Hobby Lobby by the FDA, but in actuality we know that, just from the
religious liberty point of view, this is a slippery slope because it
pits the large entity against the individual rights, and we know under
our Constitution that the very premise of religious freedom is the idea
that there is no pronounced, structured religious plan in place that
denies me my freedom. And that is what you have done to women as it
relates--when I say ``you,'' excuse me--that is what the decision has
done. It has made the boss in charge of an individual.
I would just make the argument we can stand for religious liberty,
but we must stand for it not only for corporations but for individuals
such as women who use contraception for health care, Doctor. And you
know that that happens. You are certainly very much an experienced
medical professional. I would just make the argument that I can't
imagine in the course of your medical history that you have not seen
women who need contraception for health care.
The other point that I would just finish on is that, as I indicated
on the question of a slippery slope, how else can a corporation suggest
that I am, because of my needs, infringing upon their religious
liberty? I am obviously going to be disadvantaged because, in essence,
I am a minority of one. I am an employee. I am scared for my job. But I
need to be able to express my religious freedom, and it may infringe
upon someone else's. Let us be careful about this. And I frankly hope--
--
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I need to reclaim my time. Mr. Speaker,
slippery slopes work both ways, and those people who are worried about
laws that would require the ending of life are worried about that
slippery slope as well.
I would just reiterate the point: no contraceptive that was
previously available is now unavailable because of the Hobby Lobby
decision. If there are problems in the way the law was written, I would
remind people it was a Democratic Congress and a Democratic
[[Page H6362]]
President who signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and it was
a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President that signed the
Affordable Care Act. They perhaps should have taken better care in
writing their law.
We had the hearing yesterday in the Rules Committee about the
President taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. Perhaps we
ought to have a faithful writing of the laws, as well.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of the America
Gives More Act of 2014, making permanent the tax deductions for
charitable contributions to food banks and conservation easements, and
allowing for tax-free IRA deductions. It is a sound public policy, and
I am certainly grateful to my colleague from New York (Mr. Reed) for
writing this legislation, which will have a positive impact on the
countless charities in this country which provide such critical
services to our neighbors in need.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 670 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. 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.
5051) to ensure that employers cannot interfere in their
employees' birth control and other health care decisions. 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, the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 5051.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. 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 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 670, if
ordered, and adopting the motion to instruct on H.R. 3230.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 186, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 428]
YEAS--226
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
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)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
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
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
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
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IN)
NAYS--186
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
[[Page H6363]]
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
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
Gutierrez
Hahn
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
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Byrne
Campbell
Carney
Clarke (NY)
Conyers
DesJarlais
Hanabusa
Kingston
Labrador
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Miller, Gary
Nunnelee
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Simpson
Sires
Stivers
Whitfield
Young (AK)
{time} 1031
Mr. CICILLINE and Ms. PELOSI changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. KINZINGER, FORBES, PETERSON, ADERHOLT, and Mrs. HARTZLER
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 428 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
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 230,
noes 183, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 429]
AYES--230
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
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
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)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
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
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--183
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
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
Gutierrez
Hahn
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)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Byrne
Campbell
Carney
Conyers
DesJarlais
Duncan (TN)
Hanabusa
Kingston
Larson (CT)
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Miller, Gary
Nunnelee
Sanchez, Linda T.
Scott, David
Simpson
Sires
Stivers
Whitfield
{time} 1039
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
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.
____________________