[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14789-14798]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 59, CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS 
                            RESOLUTION, 2014

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I

[[Page 14790]]

call up House Resolution 368 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 368

       Resolved, That the House hereby (1) takes from the 
     Speaker's table the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making 
     continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other 
     purposes, with the House amendment to the Senate amendment 
     thereto, (2) insists on its amendment, and (3) requests a 
     conference with the Senate thereon.
       Sec. 2.  Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII 
     relating to House Joint Resolution 59 may be offered only by 
     the Majority Leader or his designee.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), my friend, the ranking member from the Rules Committee, 
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. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 368 directs the House of 
Representatives to go to conference with the Senate to resolve 
differences between the two Chambers on how to appropriately fund the 
Federal Government. Like any other time the House goes to a conference, 
Mr. Speaker, the minority will have an opportunity to instruct 
conferees and have their ideas heard.
  For nearly 3 weeks, this body, the United States House of 
Representatives, has made numerous legitimate efforts to find a 
compromise to avoid a government shutdown. Unfortunately, Senate 
Majority Leader Reid and Senate Democrats have been unwilling to 
negotiate and have stonewalled any attempt to find common ground.
  No one wants a government shutdown, but Mr. Reid's unwillingness to 
work with House Republicans to find a solution is what brings us to a 
point now this evening. I know that we want to get our work done 
tonight. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me be clear: the proposal before us is nothing but another way to 
run out the clock. I think while we're speaking here, in just a little 
while we will find in 20 minutes--21 minutes, because I think we will 
go 1 minute after midnight--that this government will shut down.
  This amazing government that we are supposed to be overseeing--
America, the United States--can't manage its business and shows that to 
the rest of the world over the fact of trying to stop the bill you hate 
that is the law of the land, that has already been verified by the 
Supreme Court as to its constitutionality and where our President won 
election handily when this was the main idea.
  I don't believe anymore that this is the product of a few people with 
strange ideas. This is the Republican Party. I think people who watch 
the news, jaded--I do; every idle moment I have to be finding out 
what's going on in the world--were quite stunned to watch a Republican 
conference over, and the Members coming out absolutely gleeful, many of 
them expressing glee--one of them said that he was almost giddy with 
joy about closing down the House.
  Earlier this evening, I saw after the 2010 elections some new Members 
who were saying on the news that their intention was to shut down the 
House. Well, they've done it.
  At any time we could have taken up a clean bill for the Senate. All 
we had to do was vote for that Senate amendment resolution and pass 
that here, which could have been done easily with bipartisan votes. It 
would then have gone to the President of the United States. Government 
workers could sleep easier tonight if we had done that. They wouldn't 
have to worry about paying the rent, or being able to buy groceries, or 
being able to pay the tuition for their child in college.
  What we are doing to the psyche of America--not ``we.'' I'm not going 
to say that again, the universal ``we.'' What Republicans are doing to 
the psyche of America will be a long time in healing.
  I think the absurdity knows no bounds. We want to say again that if 
anybody has any mistaken notions that the Democrats were involved in 
it, there are no Democrats' fingerprints on any of these bills. I'll 
say that again: Democrats had no input at all at any time on what any 
of these bills were going to say in the greatest matter before the 
House of Representatives to keep the government going, to meet our 
obligation to fund the government.
  In fact, by cutting out the people's Representatives on my side of 
the House, almost half of the people in the United States' voices were 
stilled throughout this whole process. The only time we got to talk was 
when we were up here, and we were trying to run and catch up to see 
what was going on. We had no idea what this was about, that this was 
coming tonight. We were able to pick up bits and pieces maybe off the 
floor, and people passing around some things that maybe they heard. But 
the whole Democrat side has been shut out--not just on this measure, 
but on everything in the world that we have done in this term and last 
term as well. Now, I don't want anybody to forget that because 
everybody is going to yell if something goes wrong here, they're going 
to try to blame it on us. It's not on us. I have never seen anything 
like this.
  In addition, for well over 6 months this Democratic side has begged, 
cajoled, done everything they could to try to get this House to appoint 
conferees and to go to conference with the Senate of the United States 
on bills that each Chamber had already passed. We couldn't do the farm 
bill--couldn't do much of anything. And I said earlier today one of the 
reasons is sequestration. So we had only gotten two appropriations 
bill. They've run out of money, and there was no way in God's Earth we 
could have ever done the 12 that we needed to do.
  But even that hasn't caused any idea of changing what we're doing. 
And we want to be a part of that. We would like to take the 6 weeks--
imagine, on one hand, we are appointing conferees for a 6-week measure 
when we wouldn't do it for the budget of the Federal Government.
  Now we would like to be as much a part of it as we can while we're 
trying to deal with the debt limit and certainly to do away with 
sequestration that even my friend, Mr. Rogers, the chair of the 
Appropriations Committee, said was far too draconian and that the 
government would be seriously underfunded.

                              {time}  2345

  But tonight, here we are, tragically here. Let me see now, it's 15 
minutes away from time where it will be useless; so I am not going to 
say anything more about we could take up another bill, we could pass 
it, it would go to the President, he would sign it, and we could avoid 
it. It's simply too late. How could you, with any common sense at all, 
think that, as we have moved to this point without changing from the 
left to the right with moving ahead, throwing up every kind of thing on 
a clean CR that would kill it when it arrived at the Senate.
  We are hearing--and I hope it's not true--that when we get to the 
debt limit in about 2 weeks, that the Christmas list that they want to 
pass--everything that they wanted all their lives and couldn't get--
again, holding the country hostage, is what we have ahead of us.
  Now, given a clear choice between serving our country and serving 
ideology within these ranks, the majority has chosen to stand against 
the country and shut the government down. Make no mistake about it, 
there is going to be a lot of hurt.

[[Page 14791]]

  At this point, all I can do is urge everyone on our side of the House 
to vote ``no'' for no other reason than because of the rules in the 
House being broken and regular order being so far from reality. The 
rules of the House say that any Member can call for a vote on the 
Senate bill, but this rule takes that away from everybody but the 
majority leader. Only the majority leader can call for that vote.
  Very little is left on our side except to vote ``no'' and to express 
our great displeasure and hope to goodness that when this is over and 
all that pain is out there, that we can move as quickly as possible to 
try to right this dreadful wrong that is about to land on the American 
people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I hope we really find a way to avoid that 
by agreeing to a conference. I think a conference is important. The 
United States House of Representatives will be on a vote here in a few 
minutes where we are asking for that. I believe the American people see 
what we are doing is trying to legislatively resolve the differences 
that we have.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, our first CR was a clean CR at sequester 
levels and simply defunding ObamaCare. Our second CR was a clean CR at 
sequester levels with a 1-year delay of the entire ObamaCare law. The 
third CR was a clean CR with a 1-year delay of the individual mandate 
and removal of certain benefits for Members and congressional staff.
  I have, during these times, found that some of the wise counsel that 
I have received in the deliberations that I have had, in the duties and 
responsibilities as the chairman of the Rules Committee, leaned upon 
several people. One of them is here, the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Hal Rogers.
  Hal Rogers has provided me--and I hope I have provided him--some bit 
of working knowledge of what we were trying to accomplish, a desire to 
accommodate House and Senate Members to complete more work on 
appropriations. That is still a part of the goal that we are going to 
tonight, to go to conference so that we can fund the government and get 
it done right.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, thank you for those kind words. 
It is likewise. I have relied upon the gentleman for advice all through 
this process as well, and I appreciate his leadership in this body, 
especially as chairman of the very important Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate has just rejected the House's third attempt 
to avoid a government shutdown. This body has voted time and time again 
to keep the lights on in our government and to stop the train wreck 
that is ObamaCare. Unfortunately, our colleagues in the Senate have 
rejected these offers and have refused to come to the table to find a 
solution.
  To be absolutely clear, the House has debated and approved three 
separate continuing resolutions. These bills do what they are named 
for--they continue government. We do not want a shutdown, and we have 
done what we can to avoid it. Given the situation at hand and the late 
hour, we will now vote to send the CR we just passed and a request for 
a conference to the Senate.
  Our challenges are great, but they are not insurmountable. This 
conference will provide a venue to discuss the differences between the 
House and Senate, having productive negotiations, and come to a final 
agreement that most can support.
  In some ways, Mr. Speaker, this is a logical next step. When the 
House and the Senate are unable to resolve their differences on other 
pieces of critical legislation, the appropriate action is to appoint a 
conference. That is the time-honored way of this great body.
  I understand that this is not the first or the second or the third 
choice of many Members here tonight. It is not my first choice either. 
But I believe this motion can help us move forward and provide at least 
a gleam of light at the end of this very long tunnel.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, as we watch this train wreck in slow motion, 
this Republican shutdown of government, I ask myself, in trying to 
understand what the Republican majority is doing: Why--why are they 
seeking to close down government? Is it because some of them are 
against government and want to see it closed and--I think it's been 
quoted--this is exactly what they wanted?
  That might be the case for a few of them, Mr. Speaker, but I don't 
think most Republicans want to abolish the United States of America 
Government. I think that's a position that very few Republicans hold.
  So why are they closing the government? Now, I understand that many 
of them don't like the health care reform, the Affordable Care Act, a 
law that was passed by the House and Senate, signed by the President, 
upheld by the Supreme Court; it's the law of the land. Some of them 
don't like that.
  Do you know what? Some Americans are uncomfortable with that. They 
want to learn more about it: What does it mean to them? How does it 
help them afford health care? How does it help their families?
  But the American people don't want to see our government close down 
over disagreeing with a particular law. That seems to be what my 
friends on the other side are arguing. They are arguing: Do you know 
what? We've been unable to repeal this law under the process set up by 
our Constitution. We've been unable to pass a bill in the House, pass a 
bill in the Senate, send it to the President, and have the President 
sign it. We've been unable to follow the Constitution to get what we 
want. So instead of doing that, we're just going to shut down 
government until we get what we want. By the way, we want a lot. We 
want to change a law that was passed by the House and the Senate and 
upheld by the Supreme Court that helps middle class Americans afford 
health care. We want to change the way that benefits are conducted. We 
want to change different tax systems.
  These are all policy discussions to be had through our process. In 
fact, some of these things have actually been passed by the House of 
Representatives and either have been rejected by the Senate or are 
awaiting action in the Senate.
  But that is the genius of the Founding Fathers in setting up our 
constitutional system in the separation of powers. It was to provide 
for a way to pass laws that had broad buy-in from the American people 
and had the checks and balances that have kept our democracy strong for 
over two centuries. Yet here today we are short-circuiting that. The 
Republicans are seeking to say: We are going to close down the entire 
Federal Government.
  This is the most powerful, strongest country that the Earth has, the 
freest democratic Nation. We are going to shut down the government. We 
are going to shut down because we can't pass our laws the way we want 
them.
  Do you know what? The country has had an election. The country has 
elected a President. This was discussed in the Presidential election. 
This was discussed in Senate elections over and over again.
  In 5 minutes, the government will shut down. This bill does nothing 
to prevent that. Until the Republicans change their mind, we won't have 
an operating Federal Government.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we just entertained a piece of legislation 
that came from the Senate. There is a lot of business that needs to be 
done. We had the gentleman from Kentucky, Hal Rogers, chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, who was here, who spoke very favorably not 
only about his optimism of being able to work through this with his 
colleagues, not only the gentlewoman Nita Lowey, his ranking member, 
but also the working relationship that the Appropriations Committee has 
with our Senate colleagues.
  I think if there is one thing that is a takeaway from tonight, that 
is that

[[Page 14792]]

Hal Rogers, a man who has been in this body for a long period of time 
and who has great wisdom about not only the intricacies and the running 
of the government but also, I think, a good bit of esprit that comes 
with it, not just optimism, but his desire to make sure that good 
things happen, that is what Hal Rogers was on this floor talking to us 
about.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess, a member of the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, you have to ask yourself--most Americans do understand 
the concept of fairness--when did fairness become a partisan issue? 
Certainly tonight it seems that is the case.
  Now, look, no secret I have opposed the Affordable Care Act ever 
since I heard the first stirrings, the first musings about it in our 
Energy and Commerce Committee. I opposed it in committee, opposed it 
here on the floor of the House, opposed the Senate bill that came over 
to the House. I have opposed it at every opportunity.
  Yes, there have been multiple attempts to repeal it since the 
Republicans took majority in January of 2011. Seven of those times 
actually got passed by the Senate, went to the President, and he signed 
them into law. So there have been some restrictions on the Affordable 
Care Act over the past 3 years.
  But honestly, the changes that have occurred to the Affordable Care 
Act that have been the most dramatic and the most profound are those 
changes that are brought about by the President himself, by the 
administration itself. They are sort of like the delayer in chief for 
parts of the Affordable Care Act.
  I've had constituents email me, text me, and say: What blog post do I 
need to follow if I'm going to keep up with the changes in the 
Affordable Care Act? I had an HR director say: What Twitter feed should 
I keep up with? I have had other constituents ask me: Is there an 
Instagram place I should look at to keep up with the changes that are 
occurring with the Affordable Care Act? We are all familiar with them. 
We have discussed them the past several days.
  The fact that the preexisting condition program--the Federal 
preexisting condition program--that the President and Speaker Pelosi 
talked about with such high regard, the sign-up window has been closed 
since February 1. No one can sign up for the Federal preexisting 
program.
  There was supposed to be caps on out-of-pocket expenses starting in 
2014. Well, guess what? Those got delayed by a whim.
  We are all familiar with July 2, when on a blog post the employer 
mandate was just suddenly set aside, and then 3 days later, all of the 
reporting requirements were sort of laid aside.
  So people are concerned that parts of this law seem expendable, but 
they just don't know which parts are.
  The most egregious one was what happened in the early part of August, 
right before this body went back to their district work period, where 
the fundamental fairness, where a different set of rules were going to 
apply to Members of Congress. Constituents do not understand that.
  So this week we have had an opportunity to repair that damage, repair 
that credibility with our constituents. That went over to the Senate 
tonight and, unfortunately, it failed. I wish that it hadn't. Perhaps 
we could be talking now about the funding of the government to December 
15 and things could continue on as planned, but it didn't work out that 
way.

                              {time}  0000

  But this issue of fundamental fairness is not going to go away; it's 
going to be a recurrent theme. People are going to be asking us 
questions: Why couldn't we settle on the issue of fundamental fairness 
and do what's right for the American people and, in the process, keep 
the government open?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, it is midnight, and the great Government 
of the United States is now closed.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 
a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a joke that we are having this debate at all at 
this particular time now that it's midnight and the government is 
officially shut down.
  My Republican friends say they're coming here to try to keep the 
government open. They're here, and they're presiding over a Congress 
that has now shut the U.S. Government down. After 6 months of refusing 
to go to conference on the budget--18 times I've been told the 
Republicans objected to going to conference on the budget with the 
Senate--now they say they want a conference committee. It's too late. 
It's past midnight now. The government has been shut down. This is both 
cynical and disgraceful. Republicans have shut down the Government of 
the United States of America.
  I would say to my Republican friends that you own this. This is your 
shutdown. This represents an absolute failure of your leadership. Real 
people in this country--your constituents--are going to be hurt by your 
inability to do your job.
  Now, the funding levels in the continuing resolution are unbelievably 
low. They are at your beloved sequester levels. You should be declaring 
victory that the Senate actually agreed to your low numbers, but that's 
not enough. You had to overreach. You had to add in the dismantling of 
the Affordable Care Act and 1,000 other things that were pet projects 
of the Tea Party right wing in your party.
  The fact of the matter is you knew all along that the President would 
never sign a bill that dismantled the Affordable Care Act--nor should 
he--nor would the Senate go along with that, but you did it anyway. You 
are shutting down this government because you didn't get your way. You 
didn't get your way, so you're shutting down the government.
  I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that 
elections in the United States of America still do matter. Your 
candidate for President lost badly, and this was his No. 1 issue--to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act. Your Senate candidates lost badly. In 
fact, you lost seats in the House, and the Democrats got a million more 
votes than you did in House elections, but because of some very clever 
redistricting, you were able to hold on to the majority.
  The American people rejected your call to overturn the Affordable 
Care Act, and the American people overwhelmingly do not want you to 
shut this government down, which you just did 2 minutes ago.
  This is the people's House. We are supposed to be doing the people's 
business. We are not supposed to be doing the business of some right-
wing Senator from Texas who somehow wants to run for President and 
wants to get the Tea Party all excited. You are supposed to represent 
your constituents. We all are. Our constituents--the people of this 
country--do not want the United States Government to shut down.
  This is a failure of your leadership, and I would say there is one 
way for us to kind of make things better at this point, which is to let 
us bring a clean continuing resolution to the floor--a clean bill, a 
clean CR. Even with those low levels that I have some problems with, I 
guarantee you that it will pass with Democratic votes and Republican 
votes. We can reverse this shutdown now by bringing a clean continuing 
resolution to the floor. Please do it. Please don't shut this 
government down.
  Mr. SESSIONS. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York, Congressman Reed, a second-term Member and one of the 
clearest thinkers in our party.
  Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be clear as to what we did tonight.
  We sent a request to the United States Senate to simply treat all 
Americans equally under ObamaCare. We sent a request to the Senate to 
keep the government open. Because the

[[Page 14793]]

President has chosen to give a pass to Big Business for 1 year, we are 
asking to give that pass to American individuals for 1 year.
  The law isn't ready. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
know it's not ready. Why can't we just treat American citizens--
individuals--the same as our President, who, by his executive order, 
has said Big Business should get a pass?
  Most egregiously, why wouldn't you agree with us that Members of 
Congress should not be treated any differently under the law? You know 
the truth, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. 
Speaker: Members of Congress are getting special treatment under this 
law because of what Harry Reid and the President did through the OPM. 
Our contributions for our health insurance premiums as we go into the 
exchanges are different and are not allowed to every other American 
citizen.
  So what we stood up for tonight was a simple request: we will keep 
this government open, but let's just treat American citizens no 
differently--no special treatment for Members of Congress, American 
citizens no different than Big Business.
  Why don't you join us. Why don't you join us in those commonsense 
reforms by which Americans across the country are saying, We don't want 
this law. It's not ready to go.
  At a minimum, just treat us the same as Big Business America. Treat 
us the same, and don't give Members of Congress--yourselves--to my 
friends across the aisle, special treatment under the law.
  That simple agreement would have kept the government open, and I hope 
that you will heed that fundamental call for fairness. Yet you turned 
your ear to the American people. In the U.S. Senate, you turned a deaf 
ear to the American people and said we are going to continue the status 
quo and that somehow we in Washington, D.C., should be treated 
differently.
  I reject that message. I reject that notion. I stand for equality for 
all Americans.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to say that, if the 
Members of Congress are going to be treated like everybody else in the 
country, we would be the only group that's forced not to take our 
employer's health insurance.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the 
Budget, who has tried valiantly to do away with sequestration.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, since the very moment the Affordable Care Act was 
passed, we have heard a massive campaign of misinformation and 
distortions from our Republican colleagues. From the beginning, we 
heard about death panels. Then we heard it was going to be the 
government takeover of health care. That earned them the independent 
PolitiFact lie of the year in 2010.
  Tonight, Mr. Speaker, on the floor, we just hear massive distortions, 
and what's shameful is that they want to use that now as the cover to 
shut down the United States Government. They want to use that so that, 
tomorrow, millions of Americans can't sign up for or access affordable 
care. Members of Congress--all of us--we have affordable care, but, 
tomorrow, you want to deny that affordable care to millions of 
Americans and take it away from the millions of Americans who already 
have protection as a result of the Affordable Care Act. That is 
shameful.
  Now, this notion that they are going to go to conference on the 
continuing resolution is a fig leaf that's not going to get them any 
political cover. The only way to have kept the government open tonight, 
which is now closed, was to take up the Senate's continuing resolution 
and fund the government. Yes, then we should go to conference on the 
budget.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to go to conference on the budget to 
negotiate our differences since March, when this House passed a budget 
and the Senate passed a budget. In fact, back in April, I and my 
Democratic colleagues introduced a very simple resolution saying that 
the Speaker should obey the regular order and appoint budget 
negotiators here from the House to meet with the Senate. What did the 
Speaker do? Nothing. He blocked the ability to have those budget 
negotiations.
  We actually voted on it three times in this House. My Republican 
colleagues voted against the opportunity to appoint budget negotiators. 
In the United States Senate, what happened? On 18 occasions, Senator 
Lee and other Republican Senators blocked the effort to go to budget 
negotiations.
  Now, Senator McCain said that was insane for Republicans in the 
Senate to do because he pointed out that our Republican colleagues 
claimed that they wanted to work on these budget negotiations all 
along. They said ``no budget, no pay.'' What they forgot to tell the 
American people was that they didn't mean a Federal budget. They meant 
the House passes a budget and the Senate passes a budget, but then they 
were going to block the effort to negotiate the differences.
  Now, why would you block that, Mr. Speaker? Because, when you go to a 
budget negotiation, you've got to compromise, and you've got to meet 
the other party halfway. You've got a Tea Party right wing in this 
House that refuses to compromise. So what did they say? We're not going 
to go to conference. We are going to vote three times against 
negotiations. In May, in June, and in July, no negotiations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentlelady.
  So what do you do if you don't want to negotiate, if you don't want 
to compromise? You back the country up against the wall, and here we 
are with that strategy.
  The idea is, since you don't want to compromise in the regular order, 
let's try and get what we want by threatening to shut down the United 
States Government. If that doesn't work, we are going to make sure the 
United States Government can't pay its bills on time so that we can 
enact our radical agenda that way because you're not willing to do it 
through the regular process of compromise.
  So nobody should be fooled about this idea of trying to get fig leaf 
cover on going to conference on this. We should have voted on the bill 
and kept the government open. It is a shameful day for the United 
States Government and especially for this Congress.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republicans came to the floor of the House several 
weeks ago--we've done it lots of times and have probably had 41 votes 
on ObamaCare. We've talked about how $716 billion was cut from senior 
care, Medicare. We think that's a problem. We think that was wrong. We 
think pushing this off on seniors is the wrong thing to do. We know the 
cost to employers.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield on that point on Medicare?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is my time.
  I do appreciate the gentleman because I know what he is going to tell 
me. He's going to say, Well, we used that money in our budget. In fact, 
we did, because this was an action that was done 3 years ago, and we 
are trying to repeal the bill that took $716 billion from seniors. We 
disagreed with it, but after 3 years, you have to use the money. We 
promised at that time that we would stay after it.
  Look, the gentleman is the one who voted for it. Not one Republican 
voted to take the money. I know what their dialogue is, and I 
appreciate the gentleman. He is a very dear friend of mine. I know 
they're frustrated when we tell the truth about how bad this bill is.
  With regard to the cost to employers, Delta Air Lines marched up to 
the White House in February and said, Hey, guys. Just so you know, 
you're going to cost Delta Air Lines over $100 million this year. In 
the first year, it's going to cost $100 million.

[[Page 14794]]

  Trust me. They were listening over there. That may be why they said, 
Whoops, we'll let business off the hook.
  They should have done the same thing for everybody. Mr. Speaker, 
that's part of why we're here--we are here for fairness.
  What do Members of Congress hear when they go back home? They hear a 
lot of things, but here is the one that we hear more than anything. 
What we hear about is that there have been seven part-time jobs created 
for every one full-time job in America.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not what we were promised. We have talked a 
lot about what Republicans have said and not said and what's right and 
wrong. What is true is that the President of the United States stood 
right here and said: not one dime of taxpayer money, and you can keep 
the insurance that you've got if you want it. That's our promise to the 
American people.

                              {time}  0015

  Mr. Speaker, since ObamaCare has passed, there have been for every 
seven part-time jobs that were created, only one full-time job. We're 
becoming a part-time job Nation. Mr. Speaker, you cannot be the 
greatest Nation in the world as an economic power, you cannot get kids, 
our young children, to want to go to college for a part-time job. It's 
just not working well.
  That's why the Republican Party is here. That's why we have Members 
here tonight. That's why we've sent three CRs. That's why we have 
meeting after meeting after meeting trying to determine how do we best 
get after this. We didn't stay after the same way. We sent one offer, a 
second offer, a third offer. We're now asking something very simple: a 
chance to appoint conferees, get together face to face, talk about the 
issues and ideas, find room for compromise, and do something better. 
That's what we're asking for.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, although what we're doing here is an 
exercise in futility, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, who has been doing a wonderful job.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, now Republicans want to negotiate. After the 
shutdown clock has struck the witching hour, after weeks of making 
threats of insisting on your way or the highway, of arrogantly 
demanding repeal or delay of affordable health care, now the 
Republicans say, Please negotiate.
  This is not a motion to go to conference or a motion to negotiate. 
There's no time left for that. This is a motion to shut down our 
government. There's been plenty of time for negotiation, and 
Republicans said ``no'' at every turn. Forgive me if I remain skeptical 
that Republicans actually want to negotiate now.
  Republicans can stop this shutdown right now if they bring to the 
floor the Senate-passed continuing resolution that removes divisive 
provisions that House Republicans insist upon.
  This stunt tonight doesn't do one thing to end the government 
shutdown. We should call it what it really is: a pathetic, last-ditch 
attempt to not be blamed for a government shutdown. This is too little 
too late. We should greet this motion with the same cynicism with which 
it was offered.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ennis, Texas, Congressman Joe Barton, the dean of the Texas Republican 
delegation.
  Mr. BARTON. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee as I rise in 
support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, it is past midnight. Officially, the government is shut 
down. That is not a good thing, whether you're a Republican or a 
Democrat. We have been arguing politically the last several weeks 
various proposals to fund the government short term in a continuing 
resolution. We've been having some debates on the debt ceiling. If 
you're like me, most of your constituents, regardless of whether 
they're Republicans or Democrats, they're saying, Why can't you guys 
just get together in Washington and work things out. I think the 
Republican leadership in the House has been trying to do that. I know 
there's some disagreement on the other side about that.
  In any event, we've come up with the novel idea of going to 
conference. I know a lot of the junior Members on both sides of the 
aisle don't know what a conference is. It's where the Speaker of the 
House and the House minority leader each appoint a certain number of 
Members, normally senior Members of the committee of jurisdiction, and 
the Senate Majority Leader and the Senate minority leader appoint 
Members of their respective parties. If they actually do it, according 
to regular order, lo and behold, the Members meet and they discuss 
things.
  House Republicans would put a proposal on the table, House Democrats 
would; Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans. They would argue over it 
and debate it, maybe amend it. Then you take a vote. The House Members 
vote. If they agree, that's the House position, if the majority agrees. 
The Senate votes, and if they agree, that's the Senate position. If 
they don't agree, they have a stalemate. At least we'd be talking, and 
it would be Members, not leadership, rank-and-file Members. And it's 
just possible, if they open the conference, C-SPAN could cover it and 
the American people could see what's going on. There's no preordained 
outcome, Mr. Speaker, but it would be good for democracy.
  I can see no reason why my friends on the minority side don't want to 
go to conference with the Senate. I would assume that the distinguished 
ranking member, Nita Lowey, would head the Democrat conferees and that 
Hal Rogers, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, would head 
us. That's up to the Speaker and the minority leader to appoint that, 
but I assume that. I trust them. We can disagree on what the solution 
is, but for Heaven's sake, I can't see why we can't agree that actually 
doing what the rules say we should do is somehow partisan and somehow 
is a negative thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, and I rise in 
strong support of the resolution that we should go to conference with 
the other body and hopefully make it an expeditious conference and work 
this out.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady.
  I've seen this act before, but most Americans don't recall the 
shutdown under the Clinton administration. What they recall is the 25 
million jobs moving our economy forward, having peace and prosperity. 
And I would bet 20 years from now, this fleeting moment is not going to 
be recalled by many people in our country. They're going to think about 
the 42 months of straight employment gains, the return of the housing 
market, the auto industry, and bringing our young people home from 
Iraq.
  This majority has managed this brilliantly. Now the ObamaCare 
affordable health care exchanges are open all across the land, but 
they've managed to shut the national parks and to do a lot of other 
damage to our reputation even by this meaningless shutdown. Senator 
Mikulski has said she'd be glad to go to conference once we pass a CR 
so that the government stays open.
  What the majority comes to the floor with is, Well, we don't want the 
government to stay open; we want to go to conference. This is not going 
to work. The Obama record, from eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell, to 
Wall Street reform, to the stimulus, and, most importantly, for opening 
the door to health care for tens of millions of Americans who have 
never had the access to be able to go to a marketplace--those 
marketplaces are open. They're going to stay open no matter what this 
majority does. Never again is health care going to be denied to people 
who are American citizens here in the greatest country on the face of 
the Earth.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, our Republican Members come from diverse

[[Page 14795]]

districts all over this country. Men and women get together, we meet, 
we talk, we have clear voices. We listen to each other about what 
people are hearing from back home.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas, Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. He 
is one of the clearest voices in the discussion that we've had. He 
represents a largely rural district--people who get up and go to work 
every day, people who have a lot at risk, people who care about this 
country, men and women who provide for their children, and their 
children are part of the military. They believe in this country, and 
they know that America's greatest days need to be in our future. It 
requires vigilance, and every day you have to stay after it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the 
distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee for bringing us to this 
point with his leadership in trying to get America back to work to take 
us off the road to bankruptcy and to ensure that there is fairness for 
all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, as I listened to this debate--I'm sure the Americans 
perhaps on a little bit more Western time zone hopefully are still 
following this. If they are, I understand how they could get confused. 
But, Mr. Speaker, we're down to only debating two different matters 
here.
  Should the bosses in America get a better deal than their employees 
in ObamaCare? That's what we're debating here. More importantly, Mr. 
Speaker, we are debating should Members of Congress get a better deal 
than every other American in ObamaCare? House Republicans say, No, 
that's not fair. That's not equal protection under the law. Yet, our 
friends on the other side of the aisle are now saying, No, no, no. 
They're going to protect this sweetheart deal.
  It's not in the law, ladies and gentlemen, yet they want to protect 
this sweetheart deal. And people wonder why there's cynicism about 
Congress, about why Washington elites get to have a better deal than 
everybody else because they know more. Now Members of Congress, thanks 
to the Obama administration, are going to be the only people in America 
to get subsidies in the ObamaCare exchanges. Is this fair, Mr. Speaker? 
I think not.
  Clearly, the other side of the aisle wants to preserve this special 
deal for Members of Congress granted by the President of the United 
States. Where is the fairness in that, Mr. Speaker? Again, where is the 
fairness in letting employers--no, no, we're going to give you a year 
delay, but no fairness for the people who do the work, pay the taxes, 
and pull the wagon to make America great. That's what this debate is 
about.
  Here we have one party who, because they won't treat employees as 
well as their employers because they're preserving a congressional 
sweetheart deal, are prepared to shut down the government. That's what 
we're debating. We've got two matters.
  Mr. Speaker, we've come time after time after time in the spirit of 
negotiation, but, no, the President will negotiate with Iranians, he'll 
negotiate with Syrians, he'll negotiate with Russians, but he will not 
negotiate with Americans if they happen to be Republicans. No 
negotiation.
  Again, is it any surprise that America gets cynical? Why is this, Mr. 
Speaker? Is it arrogance? Is it hubris? Is it pride? We know that this 
law apparently is not perfect already. The President has signed several 
changes into ObamaCare. Now we've had delay after delay after delay. 
Income verification, delayed; high-risk pools, delayed; out-of-pocket 
cost limitations, delayed; small business health options--just 3 or 4 
days ago, as the President was extolling the virtues of the great 
rollout of ObamaCare, 20 minutes later his own administration announced 
yet another delay; small business health option.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HENSARLING. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the President of 
the United States has perhaps realized that his signature law is not 
perfect.
  All House Republicans are saying in a spending bill--and ladies and 
gentlemen, this does spend money. This isn't some little sideshow. This 
is what we do in the Constitution. The Congress has the power of the 
purse. It's not the power of the rubber stamp. It is the power of the 
purse. ObamaCare is about the purse.
  We're saying two things, Mr. President. In a law that you have 
already delayed time after time after time, if you're going to delay it 
for the employers, delay it for the employees. And, Mr. President, how 
can you decide that Members of Congress, to placate them, are going to 
get a sweetheart deal? This has to end, and yet our friends on the 
other side of the aisle are sitting here defending it, refusing to 
support a conference.
  We need fairness for the American people. We need to go to 
conference. End the sweetheart deals.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address all remarks 
to the Chair.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, over 3 years ago, the House and Senate 
approved and the President signed the Affordable Care Act. Our friends 
on the other side said it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said 
they were wrong.
  They nominated a candidate for President of the United States who 
said that if he was elected, the first thing he would do would be to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act. The voters said that was wrong.
  And tonight their obsession continues, and they have shut down the 
United States Government because of that obsession. The American people 
rise up and join us in saying, you were wrong twice before, and you are 
wrong again this time. This is the wrong thing to do for the American 
public.
  There's a way out of this debacle. It's to put on the House floor a 
bill that passed the United States Senate, that the President said he 
would sign, that most of us believe a majority of this House would vote 
for right now.
  So I want to ask the chairman of the Rules Committee if he would 
agree with me that the right and decent thing to do would be to put on 
this floor right now the Senate bill so that we can have an up-or-down 
vote.
  Will the chairman agree to do that?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The House has attempted three times to send something 
over, and it's come back rejected every time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, will the chairman agree that the 
fair thing to do would be to put the Senate bill on the floor so that 
each Member could cast an up-or-down vote?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, the question I have is, Did the Senate pass the 
bill?
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, the Senate passed a bill to keep the 
government running at your numbers that you wanted in budget.
  We are asking, give every Member of this House a fair up-or-down vote 
on that bill. Will you do that?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If you put back in the language that we asked for, we 
will be very pleased to agree to it.
  And I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. ANDREWS. My colleagues, Mr. Speaker, when people in politics 
don't want to say ``yes'' or ``no,'' they just keep talking.
  We could do a lot more tonight than just keep talking. We could cast 
a vote that would say to the American taxpayers, the services you are 
still paying for you're going to get tomorrow morning. The absence of 
that vote from the majority should tell you all you need to know. They 
are afraid to put

[[Page 14796]]

that vote on the floor because they would lose.
  Well, the American people are losing because of their bankrupt and 
invalid choice.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you know, our great government, on October 
1, was going to be open for health care. Mr. Speaker, all anybody has 
to do is to go online right now and try to sign up for this after years 
of our friends in the Obama administration getting ready. And the site 
says, I'm sorry, your account cannot be done. The system is 
unavailable.
  So here we are at the great day of October 1, at 12:30. Mandatory 
funding by the government can't get in the way of that. Right here, 
system unavailable for the American public. Why am I not surprised?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), our side of the Texans.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, let me disabuse my friends of any myth. Right now, the 
Republicans have shut the government down.
  SOS message from Texas: we are a diverse State with different 
opinions. One that says, with so many people that need health 
insurance, we like ObamaCare.
  But another SOS message: Ellington Field right now is shut down. The 
towers in Ellington Field in Texas are shut down. Why? Because the 
Republicans are on the floor of the House with a phony procedural vote 
that is not going anywhere, and the government is shut down.
  Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees, shut down. The SBA with 
no loans, shut down. Projects to improve our transportation, shut down. 
Federal economic reports and businesses, shut down. Workers in region 6 
offices in the State of Texas, shut down. They will not be able to go 
to work tomorrow.
  I only hope that we will have a moment of reconciliation and common 
sense to speak on behalf of the American people. Please know that Texas 
recognizes that the American people are important. I don't want a 
government shutdown. I want a vote on a clean continuing resolution 
now. Texas believes in the best for America, not special interests.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, I've heard a number of the Members on the 
other side make reference to the notion that we ought to have a 
conference, and I have heard some eloquent commentary referencing the 
point that we ought to talk to one another.
  Well, I know it's been said before, but I'm a new Member; and I heard 
a bit of a lecture, that maybe some of the new Members don't know what 
a conference committee is. Well, we know. We understand. We know how 
this works, so much so that many of us joined the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), on our side, on April 23 of this year asking 
that a conference committee be appointed to reconcile the differences 
in the budgets passed by the House and by the Senate. I didn't hear any 
of those speeches then about the value of talking to one another. Not 
until 15 minutes before the government of the United States was to be 
shut down did suddenly something that a freshman has known for a long 
time, did it occur to folks on the other side that it might be time to 
have a conversation. It's too little. It's too late. Bring the Senate-
passed CR here, and we will adopt it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the latest gimmick in the latest game by people 
who simply cannot govern, and the casualty will be American families 
and the risk that they are inflicting on our economy.
  Tomorrow in my home State and the ranking member's home State, the 
Statue of Liberty will be closed. The last time the Statue of Liberty 
was closed, Mr. Speaker, was when a hurricane struck it. And may I add 
that the majority refused to pass a bill to provide relief assistance 
when the Statue of Liberty was closed as a result of the hurricane. 
This time, the Statue of Liberty is going to be closed by their 
recklessness and their irresponsibility in order to advance a selfish 
political agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people expect two things from us. They 
expect the government to stay open and operate efficiently, and they 
expect their Congress to communicate. Our position is that we should 
keep the government open and operating efficiently while we communicate 
and go to conference. Their position is, shut it down, close the Statue 
of Liberty, and talk later.
  The American people want us to talk now, and they want this 
government to remain open. We have heard over the past several days and 
over the past 2 weeks our friends on the other side saying, listen to 
the American people. Our friends on the other side should listen to 
themselves. They have asked us for a budget today. They said, We want a 
budget. Take it or leave it. We gave them their figure. They said, Take 
it or leave it. We said, We'll take it; and they left it.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congress of chronic chaos continues every day, every 
night; and the American people deserve better.
  Open the Statue of Liberty tomorrow. Keep Small Business 
Administration loans going to small businesses. Keep college loans 
going to kids who need the college loans. Keep middle class families 
afloat. And communicate while the government remains open.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), that I have no further 
requests for time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me advise my colleague, Mr. Speaker, that I have 
one further request for time, and then I am prepared to close.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Speaker, there is only one question before us this evening, and 
that question has been proffered by so many on the other side of the 
aisle. That question, as articulated by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews), is to do what's fair, to do what's fair for the American 
people--not Democrats, not Republicans, not Green Party, not Tea Party, 
but the American people.
  The American people in the greatest land, the greatest country in the 
world deserve to have their government open; and they deserve to know 
where their Members stand.
  Do you stand with your country? Do you stand for your country? Or do 
you want to take it down this evening?
  Stand up for your country. Stand up for America. Stand with us this 
evening, and keep this government going in the name of fairness.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you, I feel such a combination 
of both sadness and anger that it makes it really difficult for me to 
express it. On the one hand, the chaos and the lurching from crisis to 
crisis that this Congress has continually gone through leaves me not 
just perplexed but absolutely bewildered.
  At the same time, I think what overrides everything for me tonight is 
a sense of terrible sadness that all of us here who have sworn to 
protect and defend the United States of America have completely given 
up on that idea. Because the majority has moved so assiduously towards 
this moment, this is on them. This government shutdown belongs to them 
for the rest of their lives.
  And now, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that the great country of the 
United States, the beacon of light for

[[Page 14797]]

almost everybody in the world, the defender of all the people in the 
world is out of a government now. The most important institution of 
government anywhere ever devised is now closed.
  And I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, tonight is a night that we will remember. 
The things that will be remembered about this night are that our party 
has attempted to work with, reach out, and deal with our colleagues in 
the United States Senate.
  We have sent a CR, a clean CR at
sequester levels and defunding ObamaCare. It was shipped back to us. A 
second CR, a clean CR at sequester levels, a 1-year delay of the entire 
ObamaCare law. A third CR at sequester levels, a 1-year delay, and 
removal of certain benefits that we believe is fairness.
  But the overriding suggestion that we have made tonight goes back to 
a little bit over an hour ago with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

                              {time}  1245

  He is asking for the opportunity for us to go to conference to 
resolve our differences, people working together, people looking at 
each other. As was suggested by the gentleman, Mr. Barton, yeah, 
probably a TV would be in the room and the American people would get a 
chance to weigh and balance both sides also. We think that's important. 
That's what we're asking for. That's why we're on the floor of the 
House of Representatives tonight, and this is what we stand for.
  We're after fairness. We're after an opportunity to get these ideas 
and the issues resolved for the American people. So I'm going to urge 
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the House Republican majority has decided 
that appeasing radical Tea Party extremists is more important to them 
than providing necessary funding for the continued operation of the 
federal government, even on a temporary basis. Passing a common sense 
continuing resolution would ensure vital government services for 
millions of American families and business. These are the basic 
services provided everyday by federal agencies that keep our 
communities and country strong.
  It is now the early morning hour of October 1st and Fiscal Year 2014 
has commenced, but the government is shutdown. Here we are and the 
Republican majority in the House has failed to pass a simple, common 
sense extension to fund the government that the U.S. Senate passed 
three times.
  The Tea Party GOP success in shutting down the government tonight 
means that over 800,000 federal employees will immediately be 
furloughed and vital federal services will be suspended indefinitely. 
Government services and functions we all take for granted for things 
like food inspections, government permitting, and essential scientific 
research will all immediately stop. They don't need to stop, but 
Republican House members have made this choice as part of a cynical, 
dangerous and harmful political strategy intended to appease 
conservatives, anarchists and those who disregard the value of 
government.
  Why? Why would Congress want the government to shutdown? Because Tea 
Party Republicans are determined to repeal, defund, or delay the 
implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), denying 
healthcare to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, in exchange for 
allowing the federal government to keep operating. This political stunt 
is beyond irresponsible, it is irrational when considering the damage 
it will cause to the economy, job creation, and families all across 
America.
  Despite the fact that ObamaCare is the law, upheld by the U.S. 
Supreme Court as constitutional, and was the basis of President Obama's 
re-election in 2012, House Tea Party Republicans still feel they can 
``negotiate'' the dismantling of ObamaCare by holding the entire 
federal government hostage.
  Ironically, the Affordable Care Act's exchanges will open today and 
this government shutdown will do nothing to deter, delay or derail this 
critical health program from being implemented. ObamaCare is going 
forward and millions of Americans will have access to affordable 
healthcare. House Republicans have voted as many as 45 times, including 
tonight, to repeal, replace or defund ObamaCare. They are obsessed with 
this law and it has become a mania that has now resulted in a shutdown 
of the U.S. government--it is outrageous and it angers me greatly. It 
is a disgrace.
  When will House Republicans end the dangerous game they are playing 
and put the needs of our Nation above their narrow, backwards, and 
irresponsible ideological demands? I was optimistic that Democrats and 
Republicans could find common ground on a clean continuing resolution 
that passed the U.S. Senate to fund the government for the next six 
weeks.
  It is clear to the American people that the Republican strategy has 
been to create a crisis and use a government shutdown as a bargaining 
chip to advance an extreme agenda regardless whether there are millions 
of Americans who get hurt.
  Yesterday in Politico my Republican friend and colleague from Idaho, 
Rep. Mike Simpson, was quoted as saying, ``We bitched and moaned about 
the Senate not doing a budget. Then they did, and we didn't go to 
conference. You need a big plan, Democrats and Republicans in the same 
room. We should have gone to conference.''
  He is right. House Republicans refused to negotiate on the federal 
budget. The ignored calls from Democrats to appoint conferees.
  Tonight the New York Times reported, ``The House's most ardent 
conservatives appeared ready to see their war over the health care law 
through to its inevitable conclusion, a shutdown that would test 
voters' patience. But cracks in the Republican caucus opened into 
fissures of frustration.''
  The Times article then goes to quote one of our colleages: ``You have 
this group that keeps saying somehow if you're not with them, you're 
for Obamacare,'' said Representative Devin Nunes, Republican of 
California. ``If you're not with exactly their plan, exactly what they 
want to do, then you're somehow for Obamacare, and it's just getting a 
little old. It's moronic to shut down the government over this.''
  That's right ``moronic.'' And I could not agree with my Republican 
colleague more.
  As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, the passage of a 
continuing resolution is about funding the government--not re-writing 
law to repeal, defund, or derail health reform. Democrats would like to 
see a Farm Bill, immigration reform, and responsible gun safety 
legislation passed into law, but we are not holding the federal 
government and the American people hostage to advance our legislative 
priorities. It is not responsible. Congress needs to pass a clean 
continuing resolution, re-open the government, and govern responsibly.
  The situation the American people find themselves in at this moment 
is appalling, it is maddening. This Republican Congress has abdicated 
its responsibility and duty to the citizens of this country. This 
federal government shutdown is a manufactured crisis for political gain 
propagated by the extremists who disdain government itself.
  My job as a member of Congress is to govern. I am committed to work 
with my Republican colleagues, my colleagues in the U.S. Senate, and 
the Obama Administration to pass a clean continuing resolution that 
funds the government without legislating radical riders or hostage 
taking.
  This great nation is being tested by the irresponsibility of a House 
Republican majority that refused to govern. I sincerely hope the 
American people voice their displeasure, disdain, and disgust at the 
political game playing.
  The previous question was ordered.
  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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 199, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 505]

                               YEAS--228

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton

[[Page 14798]]


     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     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)
     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
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     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
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--199

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     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
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Massie
     Matsui
     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
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, 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
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bachus
     McCarthy (NY)
     Rush
     Velazquez

                              {time}  0110

  Mrs. CAPPS and Mr. RUIZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.
  Mr. PALAZZO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________