[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14964-14975]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 370, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 
   OPERATIONS, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART, AND 
   UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS 
RESOLUTION, 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 71, DISTRICT 
 OF COLUMBIA CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014; PROVIDING FOR 
      CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 72, VETERANS BENEFITS CONTINUING 
 APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. 
   RES. 73, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS 
  RESOLUTION, 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3230, PAY OUR 
 GUARD AND RESERVE ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO 
                           SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 370

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House any joint resolution 
     specified in section 2 of this resolution. All points of 
     order against consideration of each such joint resolution are 
     waived. Each such joint resolution shall be considered as 
     read. All points of order against provisions in each such 
     joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on each such joint resolution and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) 30 minutes of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  The joint resolutions reffered to in the first 
     section of this resolution are as follows:
       (a) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 70) making continuing 
     appropriations for National Park Service operations, the 
     Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art, and the 
     United States Holocaust Memorial Museum for fiscal year 2014, 
     and for other purposes.
       (b) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 71) making continuing 
     appropriations of local funds of the District of Columbia for 
     fiscal year 2014.
       (c) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 72) making continuing 
     appropriations for veterans benefits for fiscal year 2014, 
     and for other purposes.
       (d) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 73) making continuing 
     appropriations for the National Institutes of Health for 
     fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3230) making 
     continuing appropriations during a Government shutdown to 
     provide pay and allowances to members of the reserve 
     components of the Armed Forces who perform inactive-duty 
     training during such

[[Page 14965]]

     period. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) 30 minutes of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of October 6, 2013, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules as though under 
     clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, we're here today because we don't have a 
``my way or the highway'' system of government. We have a system of 
government that requires that the people's representatives come 
together and build consensus, find a common path forward. And that path 
has been illusive, Mr. Speaker.
  Oftentimes, as the reading clerk is reading a bill, you'll see 
someone ask to waive the reading of the bill, ask unanimous consent 
that the bill not be read. I'm so pleased that today we had every 
single word of this resolution read, Mr. Speaker, because the words 
matter.
  I open up a newspaper, it talks about all the division in Washington, 
D.C. It talks about all the things on which we cannot agree. And what 
we have before us today, Mr. Speaker, is a bill about things on which 
we agree.
  I hear it from my constituents all the time. They say, Rob, why in 
the world can't you all get something done? I understand there are 
things that you legitimately disagree about, ideas about which 
different parts of the country have different paths forward. But what 
about those things on which you agree?
  That's what we have here today, Mr. Speaker. There's not a Member in 
this body that is celebrating a government shutdown. What we can 
celebrate, though, is a path out of the government shutdown. This rule 
allows for that today.
  I want to read those titles again, Mr. Speaker. H.J. Res. 70, to 
reopen our national parks and museums, common ground on which this body 
agrees.
  H.J. Res. 71, to provide local funding for the District of Columbia. 
A lot of folks don't realize, but because the District of Columbia is a 
Federal district, the Federal Government provides a little money, but 
most of the money comes from the District of Columbia itself. But the 
District of Columbia is not allowed to spend its local funds without a 
Federal authorization. This does that.
  And then, so important, Mr. Speaker, honoring our promise to 
America's veterans. I don't believe there's a man or woman in this 
Chamber that doesn't believe our veterans deserve the very best service 
that we can provide. I don't think there's a man or a woman in this 
Chamber who wants to see our VA services halted or curtailed. We solve 
that today, Mr. Speaker.
  Research for Lifesaving Cures Act, Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 73, to 
continue funding at the NIH. NIH makes us all so proud. We do so many 
first-in-human trials at the Winship Cancer Institute down just outside 
of my district in Georgia.
  Mr. Speaker, lifesaving research, lifesaving opportunities caught up 
in this government shutdown, not one of those things on which we 
disagree; one of those things on which we agree. We have an opportunity 
to get that done today.
  And, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3230, Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act.
  Again, there's a lot to be frustrated about here today. And I know 
folks back home, Mr. Speaker, in your district and in mine, they have a 
lot to be frustrated about too. But one bright moment in this debate 
came late on Saturday night when we came together unanimously and said, 
whatever our disagreements here, our men and women in uniform should 
not get caught up in it. Pay our troops first. It brought us together.
  Not just in this House, Mr. Speaker, we have the ability to come 
together, but also in the Senate, where, by unanimous consent, they 
passed that bill. It went to the President's desk.
  But what that bill did not include, and what I believe we all believe 
it should have included, was funding for our National Guard and our 
Reserve. This bill gives us the opportunity to solve that today.
  Mr. Speaker, we tried to bring up three of these five bills yesterday 
under a process they call suspension of the rules. It requires two-
thirds of the House to support it. But because we unanimously supported 
our troops last week, we assumed that we would be able to unanimously 
support our veterans, unanimously support our folks here in the 
District of Columbia, using their local forums, unanimously support our 
parks and our monuments, and we were wrong.
  I'll say to my friends, I don't know if they looked at the numbers--
80 percent of my friends on the other side of the aisle said no. They 
said yes, this is something on which we agree, but no, we are not going 
to participate in solving that problem. We want that problem to persist 
until you solve all the problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I'll close with this. One of our great patriots during 
the American Revolution, Edmund Burke, said, No man does worse than he 
who does nothing because he can only do a little.
  Mr. Speaker, I concede that some of the things we're working on today 
might seem like a little. But we have the opportunity to help people. 
We have an opportunity to make a difference, and shame on us if we do 
nothing because we can only do a little.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, good day to you. I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I think if Edmund Burke were alive today he would say that what we're 
really doing is so very little it's shameful, when we could do so much.
  I want to say this, and I want to say it about every chance I get. We 
could stop this today.
  We have just come from a 3-hour Rules meeting and hearing people on 
the floor and a lot of my colleagues, I have the sense that they don't 
have any idea what a government shutdown was. All of a sudden it's 
starting to hurt. Let's pick this piece over here, that one over there, 
and we can fix that.
  800,000 people who work for the United States Government are being 
used as pawns. We are hurting all of the citizens of the United States 
who need the services that those 800,000 people provide.
  We have one thing to do, Mr. Speaker, one thing: we can take from 
this desk and concur with the Senate CR. That's it. It doesn't have to 
go back to the Senate. It can go directly to the President of the 
United States, maybe even before the big meeting today. Sign it and 
it's over with. But no, we're not going to do that.
  Now, don't believe that this bill was written today because there is 
a particular sympathy for patients at NIH or the visitors to the 
national parks or the citizens of the District of Columbia. These 
proposals are cynical attempts to make these things pinch just a little 
bit less.
  Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that 30 sick children, 
most with cancer, were turned away from NIH clinical trials because of 
the government shutdown. Should they be

[[Page 14966]]

pawns in this political, cynical game to hurt the health care bill?
  This morning, the majority proposes to reopen NIH, or part of it. 
Yesterday, the TV cameras were dispatched around the country to capture 
the footage of museums and monuments closed. This morning the majority 
proposes they're going to open those sites.
  The majority's making itself clear: anytime they see a bad headline, 
they're going to bring a bill to the floor to make it go away. At this 
rate, it could be a year from now before we ever finally come to some 
conclusion thereon, because nobody has said anything about what the end 
game is here.
  How long are you going to hold the government, the country hostage?
  Surely it doesn't have anything to do with health care anymore, after 
yesterday.
  Now, if the majority really cared, we'd reopen the entire government, 
all of NIH, national parks right here, right now on this floor in this 
action we're taking today.
  If the majority held a simple vote on a clean version of the Senate 
CR, the government shutdown would be closed upon the President's 
signature.
  This afternoon I will give every Member of this Chamber a chance to 
do just that, as I did just in the Rules Committee. I want you to know 
that the opportunity to vote for the CR, end the government shutdown, 
failed 9-4 on a party-line vote. That tells us something about why 
we're here today and what the purpose is for all of this.
  Let me be clear. This amendment is the only chance that this Chamber 
may ever have to end the government shutdown. If this Chamber supports 
my amendment, we will pass a clean CR this afternoon.
  Now, if the majority really cared about helping those cancer 
patients' access to health care or letting the World War II veterans 
visit the monuments and reopening the doors of the Nation's parks and 
museums, they will vote for my amendment.
  The VA, by the way, has announced today that they are running out of 
money. Furthermore, passing a clean CR would actually do more to help 
the Nation's veterans than the majority's proposal to fund the 
Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Under the majority's proposal, the VA would receive $6 billion less 
than if we simply passed the CR which, in other words, has $6 billion 
more for the veterans than what you're proposing today.
  So for all the cries of concern, the majority's desire to shortchange 
the veterans by $6 billion tells you all that you need to know. And the 
veterans understand that. They know that they're being used as a pawn 
in this cynical, political game, and they resent it.
  Far from honest policy, today's proposals are more cynical politics. 
For almost a week, the majority has found itself in a legislative box, 
or at least I thought so until a little while ago, and the Rules 
Committee vote, and when they voted 9-4 not to open up the government, 
I realized that that was the aim all along.
  Now, because the Senate voted for cloture on a clean funding bill, a 
simple majority of Senators have been able to put an end to the 
repeated attempts to dismantle the Affordable Health Care Bill.
  Now, under these circumstances, the majority knows they can't keep 
proposing ransom demands, so they've broken cloture and returned to a 
60-vote threshold in the Senate. The need to break cloture is why they 
tried to go to conference 15 minutes before the government shutdown, 
and that's why they are continuing to avoid a clean vote on the Senate 
CR today.
  Mr. Speaker, two paragraphs in The Washington Post this morning sum 
up what this fight always has been and continues to be about: defunding 
the Affordable Care Act and taking health care away from 300 million 
Americans who have no insurance.
  Referring to yesterday's events, Ezra Klein of The Washington Post 
wrote:

       The top story all day was that Republicans had shut down 
     the Federal Government because President Obama would not 
     defund or delay the Affordable Care Act. The other major 
     story was that the government servers were crashing because 
     so many people were trying to see if they could get the 
     insurance through ObamaCare. On the one hand, Washington was 
     shut down because Republicans don't want citizens to have 
     ObamaCare. On the other hand, ObamaCare was shut down because 
     so many Americans did want that insurance.

  Yesterday was, indeed, a historic day for our Nation and for every 
American who's ever been denied access to health care. In my home State 
of New York, there were more than 2 million visits to our online 
exchange in less than 90 minutes.
  And by later in the day, the last number that I have, just for 
yesterday, 10 million people had visited the Web site at the end of the 
day. That is about 12 percent of the entire population of the State of 
New York, yesterday.
  Meanwhile, 4.7 million people visited healthcare.gov yesterday--
that's the national database--while almost 100,000 more visited online 
exchanges in Illinois, in Colorado. Most importantly, in States from 
Kentucky to California, in red States and blue States, thousands of 
Americans went to sleep last night having purchased health insurance 
through the newly launched exchanges.
  Now, while these Americans went to bed realizing their long-awaited 
dream, the majority woke up this morning realizing that their worst 
nightmare had come true. Despite their best efforts, the American 
people were finally given access to safe and affordable health care.
  Now, the only question that remains is if the majority will finally 
acknowledge reality, or if they will keep the government closed while 
they continue their quest to take American's health care away.
  I'm extremely grateful to the chairman of my committee this morning, 
when he said, when we called for a vote on funding the government 
today, he said, and I quote, ``I would say on behalf of the majority, 
what we think we are doing here today is probably some straight-line 
Republican viewpoints.''
  I strongly urge my colleagues to reject the majority's latest 
gimmicks by voting ``no'' on the rule and the underlying legislation, 
and vote ``no'' on the PQ so that we can put our amendment on the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to say to my 
friend that we have an opportunity to do something today. There's been 
a lot of talk on this floor. We have an opportunity to actually do 
something, and I don't think there's going to be a single Member on the 
other side of the aisle that challenges the notion that, if we pass 
these bills, we will make a difference for American veterans, we will 
make a difference for American families, and we will make a difference 
for American Guardsmen and Reservists.
  And I do not believe that the heart of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle is that, because we can only do a little, we should 
do nothing.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Roe), a good friend and great leader in this 
institution,

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. ROE of Tennessee. I thank my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying 
resolutions.
  The situation in which we find ourselves is as unfortunate as it is 
unnecessary. The House has voted three times to fund the government. 
It's been rejected three times by the Senate Democrats. With each 
successive vote, the House compromised on its position that ObamaCare 
should be defunded.
  Our most recent offer would have delayed the individual mandate for 1 
year and ended the congressional exemption from ObamaCare. Nine House 
Democrats supported this proposal, which would give American families 
the same relief from ObamaCare that President Obama unilaterally gave 
Big Businesses. But, again, Harry Reid said ``no.''
  As we wait for Senate Democrats to come to the table, the House will 
continue its efforts to restart government operations.
  Two areas we seek to fund today--national parks and veterans 
benefits--hit

[[Page 14967]]

incredibly close to home. The district I represent in east Tennessee 
includes parts of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The Smokies 
are more than a natural wonder. They are an important part of the 
economy in Sevier County, Tennessee.
  Dale Ditmanson, the park's superintendent, told me that 1.1 million 
people typically visit the park in October; but as long as the gates to 
the park remain closed, hotels, restaurants, and other parts of the 
service industry in that county will suffer.
  Even more important than reopening our national parks is meeting our 
commitment to America's veterans. I'm privileged to serve on the 
nonpartisan Veterans' Affairs Committee; and as a veteran myself, I 
hope we can come together on a bipartisan basis to provide funding for 
processing disability claims and for benefits like the GI Bill and VA 
home loans. How could anyone stand in opposition to those who have 
stood in the line of fire to keep this country free? The answer is 
President Obama, who has promised to veto such a bill. This is 
unconscionable.
  These funding bills represent a series of commonsense steps to get 
more of the government back online and to meet our commitments to the 
American people. After all, I wasn't elected and sent here by my 
constituents to shut down the government. I was sent here to reform it, 
to make it smaller, and to make it more accountable.
  I urge my colleagues to support the underlying rule and the 
underlying bills.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it 
would be the best of common sense for us to end this charade today. But 
I understand now, because I've heard it twice, that the intent really 
is to wait and whittle down the government. As Grover Norquist, I 
believe, famously said, he would like to shrink it down to drown it in 
the bathtub.
  I think we're in the process of doing that today by funding it a 
little piece here, a little piece there, and the devil take the 
hindmost.
  I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. We are now in day two of a Republican-
created shutdown.
  While my Republican colleagues drag their feet on allowing an up-or-
down vote on the Senate's clean continuing resolution, vital research 
at the NIH has been halted, student loan processing has been delayed, 
and veterans can't apply for a VA home loan.
  The same bills that this rule will bring to the floor have already 
been debated and voted on. My colleagues are not being reasonable, to 
say the least. Because Republicans didn't get their way yesterday, they 
now bring the same bills up again, only this time under regular order. 
They will get their 216 votes, but they know and I know that this 
action does nothing to advance the ball. It does nothing to get us 
closer to a solution.
  I remind my colleagues that House Democrats are willing to accept a 
clean CR at the levels that House Republicans have demanded. It's not 
what we want, but we compromised in an effort to do the business of the 
people.
  The votes are here, Mr. Speaker, for a clean CR. Every Democrat, I 
believe, will vote for a clean CR. And many Republicans will do the 
same.
  We're asking you to compromise. Your refusal to compromise has shut 
down this government. And for what? Political theater.
  I repeat, the votes are here. Prove me wrong.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, in my prior life, as many of you know, I was 
a trial judge. I presided over thousands of very difficult cases. So 
often, jurors could not agree, but they worked hard without a political 
agenda. They reasoned together and administered justice.
  Let us reason together. Let's get the CR passed today.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to say to my 
friend that there's a little revisionist history in that recitation.
  You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the House passed its package, 
and the Senate said, No, it's our way or the highway. So the House 
said, Well, let me give you a different package--one that is a little 
closer to that position. The Senate said, No, it's my way or the 
highway.
  Then the House said, Let me give you a third position that's a little 
closer to you. And the Senate said a third time, No, it's my way or the 
highway. And then the House said, Well, come and sit down with me at 
the table so that we can find a way through our differences. And the 
Senate said, No, it's my way or the highway.
  The American people know who's looking for common ground and 
consensus in this body.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller), a real supporter of finding that pathway 
forward, the chairwoman of the House Administration Committee.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly thank my colleague for yielding 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, just 3 days ago, this House unanimously 
passed the Pay Our Military Act. The Senate unanimously passed the same 
bill, and the President signed it into law.
  That was 3 days ago. That legislation guaranteed that all members of 
our Armed Forces would receive their pay for their service during any 
government shutdown. And that law also applies to full-time Guard and 
Reserve members. Yet Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has improperly 
furloughed countless Guardsmen and -women across the country, in 
violation of the intent of that law.
  Mr. Speaker, today, a bipartisan group of myself and my colleagues 
will be sending a letter to Secretary Hagel demanding that he enforce 
this law properly and to send our Guardsmen and -women back to work.
  Today, we will also consider legislation that will provide for 
funding to make certain that the Guardsmen on inactive status are paid 
as well and allowed to continue to train during a government shutdown. 
This readiness is absolutely essential to the protection of our great 
Nation. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is needlessly furloughing 
Guardsmen who are essential to defending our great Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, President Obama sent a letter to Federal 
workers telling them they should not be used as punching bags, but that 
is exactly what his administration is doing to members of our National 
Guard.
  In fact, this is the same thing this administration did when the 
sequester was enforced.
  They immediately shut down the White House to tours.
  They scared the public into believing that their travel plans would 
be interrupted at our airports.
  They tried in every possible way to hurt and to scare the public as 
much as possible.
  And they are once again playing true to form, this time harming our 
National Guard to make a political point.
  Now, I know that our friends on the other side of the aisle say that 
they're going to oppose this legislation because they say that they 
need an entire government funding bill or nothing at all. And yet they 
are calling Republicans the absolutists. That's what they're calling 
us? Seriously.
  I would just say to my Democratic friends that we aren't asking you 
to repeal ObamaCare in order to make certain that our National Guard 
gets paid. We are just asking our Democratic friends to pay the 
National Guard, for goodness sake.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I heard some Members on the other side, our 
Democratic friends, say that what we are talking about here is just a 
fig leaf or a distraction. Mr. Speaker, I do not consider paying our 
National Guard a fig leaf or a distraction. I consider our National 
Guard to be warriors essential to the defense of this Nation.
  I would urge this House to pass this legislation that will allow our 
men and women who serve so bravely in our National Guard to do their 
job and to protect our freedoms.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and also the underlying bills.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that the

[[Page 14968]]

three bills that everybody is so proud of that they've put out to try 
to re-fund the Government have a dagger at the heart of the health care 
bill and would have destroyed it.
  I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Well, Mr. Speaker, here we are, on Day 2 of the 
Republican shutdown of the Nation's government, and the Republican 
majority has come up with yet another bit of meaningless political 
theater.
  Yesterday's strategy from the gang that couldn't shoot straight was 
to bring up a small handful of bills to fund popular government 
programs and to try to pass them on suspension. That failed. Today's 
nonsense is to bring up those same bills under this rule and try to 
pass them with a majority vote.
  Now, just for a moment, let's leave aside the fact that none of these 
bills are going anywhere. The Senate isn't going to go along with this, 
and neither is the President. So all of this is just a gigantic waste 
of time, which is one of the few things the majority is good at.
  We say it all the time around here: budgets are about priorities. 
Budgets reflect things that you believe are most important to support.
  And yesterday we learned all about the priorities of the Republican 
leadership. The first bill they brought up for debate--the one that 
they wanted to get over to the Senate most quickly--was a bill to fund 
the national parks and monuments. Now, I like the national parks. In 
fact, I love them. I support their full funding. I even believe they 
should get more funding than they would receive under the lousy 
Republican sequester numbers. But that's their number one priority?
  What about the researchers at the Centers for Disease Control who 
protect us from epidemics? More than 8,700 people have already been 
furloughed from the CDC. I hope my Republican colleagues have gotten 
their flu shots, Mr. Speaker.
  What about the low-income mother who has been cut off from WIC? What 
about the children who have been turned away from the Head Start 
programs?
  No, they want to fund parks. And why? Let's be honest about this. 
Because right now every television network in America has a camera crew 
down at the National Mall interviewing disappointed tourists and taking 
pictures of the ``Closed'' signs on the Smithsonian museums. Because 
today, camera crews in California and Wyoming and Montana will be 
taking pictures of visitors turned away from Yosemite and Yellowstone 
and Glacier National Park.
  Mr. Speaker, when my kids were little, we used to give them trail mix 
as a snack. There was granola and raisins and nuts and all kinds of 
healthy things. But my kids always wanted to pick out the M&Ms. That's 
what this Republican majority has been reduced to--trying to pick out 
the M&Ms from the trail mix. Eventually, my kids grew up. I hope the 
Republican majority will do the same.
  We can do this right away. We can do this today. We can do this right 
now. We can pass the clean continuing resolution that has already 
passed the Senate. That's the way you keep the government functioning 
while the two Chambers work out their differences.
  The notion that you're shutting the government down on a 5-week 
continuing resolution when we still have to negotiate a long-term 
spending bill is unconscionable. People all across this country, 
Democrats and Republicans, are outraged by the behavior of this 
Republican leadership. It is time to grow up. It is time to pass a 
clean continuing resolution.
  Let's open up this government. Let's open it up today.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it's clear we're going to hear more ``it's 
my way or the highway'' from the other side throughout today.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), a 
freshman Member of this body who believes that there is a pathway 
forward and that we can make a difference.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support this rule, which would allow the House to vote on the Pay Our 
Guard and Reserve Act and the Honoring Our Promise to America's 
Veterans Act.
  The Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act provides funding for the pay and 
allowances of military personnel in the Reserve component who are in 
inactive status.
  Like most of us, my office has been flooded with phone calls and 
emails sharing real-life stories about how this government shutdown is 
negatively impacting the folks that we represent. This government 
shutdown is such a disappointment. In the meantime, there's no logical 
reason for members of the military, Reserves, veterans, and their 
families to go one more day without the support they deserve.
  According to an article in the Indy Star, about 600 full-time 
civilian employees and Air Force Reservists have been furloughed at 
Grissom Air Reserve Base located in Miami County. This could affect the 
ability for Grissom Air Reserve Base to maintain their operational 
readiness.
  The Peru Tribune, Miami County's hometown paper, stated:

       Reservists were told to go home.

  One thousand Indiana National Guard employees were furloughed on 
Tuesday. Indiana has the fourth largest National Guard in the country.

                              {time}  1415

  We're proud that our brave men and women so strongly represent the 
Guard and a steadfast commitment to our country.
  This is so unfair to our Hoosier heroes who fight every day. 
Indiana's Second District is home to more than 53,000 veterans. One of 
them called my office yesterday expressing concern about losing access 
to VA health services.
  The Honoring Our Promise to America's Veterans Act provides immediate 
funding to ensure the continuation of veterans' disability payments, 
the GI Bill, education training, and VA home loans. Passing these bills 
is the least we can do.
  I urge my colleagues to put politics aside. Be fair to the 
individuals and the families who have sacrificed everything for the 
continued defense of this Nation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, just 10 seconds to say let's not do the 
least we can do. This is the day we can open up the government and 
serve our people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my dear friend, the ranking member of the Rules 
Committee.
  I had a prepared talk, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to give it. I'm 
going to respond to the distinguished manager who has used phrases like 
``revisionist history'' and ``my way or the highway.'' You know, those 
are words that are worthy of what surrounds this issue, but they are, 
of course, exactly the opposite of what the distinguished manager 
suggests.
  It wasn't this side of the aisle that said: We'll fund the government 
on a condition, and that condition is you have to agree to what we 
could not achieve legislatively, what we could not achieve in the 
courts, what we could not achieve at the ballot box; we're going to 
hold you hostage. You're going to do it, or else.
  You're right, it's my way or the highway, but it's you who are saying 
``my way or the highway''--one might say you.
  In terms of revisionist history, this idea that we're just trying to 
help veterans and the National Guard and that's the least we can do, 
well, what about all the other agencies of the Federal Government? What 
about the rest of the people that need to be served?
  I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, my 
family has participated in the National Guard. My nephew has been in 
the National Guard--still is. He has served two tours of duty in Iraq 
and one tour of duty in Afghanistan. He is now a Blackhawk helicopter 
pilot for the National Guard and ready to go again.
  I and my family and my colleagues need no lecture about patriotism 
and

[[Page 14969]]

about service to country. What we do want--and what my nephew wants and 
all like him--is that we stand up in this Congress and fund the 
government. That's the least we can do for National Guardsmen and for 
the clerk who processes applications for people to qualify for Social 
Security. We owe that to our constituents. We owe that to our country.
  Can we put aside the issues of revision and ``my way or the highway'' 
and come together and have a clean continuing resolution--buy ourselves 
some time to continue the debate on ancillary issues, but stop the 
hostage-taking for the sake of my nephew, and perhaps yours?
  It is time to put an end to this reckless Republican shutdown. We are 
now in day 2 of this manufactured crisis, in which House Republicans 
are holding hostage the American people and the essential government 
services on which they rely.
  The cavalier nature in which Republicans have allowed this shutdown 
to occur--if not outright advocated for it--is shameful. Some have even 
suggested that the shutdown has gone largely unnoticed. That is 
outrageous! Do they not see the very real pain they are causing in 
their own communities? I suggest they visit with some of the 10,000 
seniors a day who now have to wait for their Medicare enrollment to be 
processed . . . or the small businesses that cannot open their doors 
and hire new workers because SBA loans have been put on hold . . . or 
the dedicated men and women of our federal workforce--the majority of 
whom live outside the DC region in their communities--who protect our 
borders, safeguard our food supply, and respond to natural disasters 
and now have to worry about how to pay their mortgages.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans say it is unacceptable for 
Republicans to shut down the government to meet their narrow, partisan 
demands. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--along with the Prince William 
and Fairfax Chambers in my district--has urged Congress to fund the 
government and raise the debt ceiling without any extraneous provisions 
for fear of disrupting the economy.
  That is what Democrats have offered to do, but House Republicans 
refuse to compromise on their demand to defund or delay the Affordable 
Care Act. Mr. Speaker, it's like our Republican colleagues have been 
overcome by a mass psychosis to satiate the rabid demands of the Tea 
Party crowd.
  We know there are some sensible members on the other side of the 
aisle who want to do the right thing. I implore them to prevail upon 
their leadership to work with us in bipartisan fashion to end this 
shutdown.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Members are reminded to 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to my friend from Virginia, before he leaves the floor, 
that I'm grateful to his nephew for his service. I, too, represent a 
part of the world where service is not an opportunity but an 
obligation.
  I would say, as my friend knows very well, this body, this United 
States House, in June, passed our Veterans and Military Construction 
appropriations bill. This whole idea that you're supposed to fund the 
government in one giant bill is more of that revisionist history. 
That's exactly the wrong way to fund the government.
  The way the government is supposed to be funded, as you know, Mr. 
Speaker, is that we're supposed to fund it one piece at a time--that's 
the way it always has been, the way it always should be--because you 
end up looking to see where those funding priorities are.
  So this House, Mr. Speaker, in June, with only four dissenting votes, 
passed a bill affirming the financial commitment that this Nation 
should have to our veterans, and it has been sitting, gathering dust, 
in the United States Senate since June.
  Funding for all veterans ran out on September 30. We all knew that. 
We knew it last September 30 that funding was going to run out this 
September 30, which is why this House has moved forward on 
appropriations bills. The Senate has moved forward on zero, Mr. 
Speaker. That's why it's my way or the highway.
  There's a right way to get this done, and we've been trying to do it 
here. The Senate won't do it the right way. They want to do it their 
way--and a way that doesn't serve folks back home the way you and I, 
Mr. Speaker, know that they are entitled to be served.
  You have not heard one voice on this floor today dispute that the 
bills we have before us would make a difference in the lives of 
American families. You've had folks say it doesn't do enough, but you 
haven't had folks say it doesn't do what it's intended to do. We have 
an opportunity to do some good. Let's do it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, what I'd like to know is why the 
Republicans are so afraid of the Affordable Care Act. Is it because it 
makes health care affordable to millions?
  The Republicans have spread fear about the ACA for so long, it's no 
wonder people are afraid. Well, maybe they're afraid because the ACA is 
going to work. In fact, the ACA is already working--making health care 
accessible and lowering health care costs. It's increasing competition 
amongst insurance providers.
  But here's what's happening: Republicans don't like the ACA, so they 
crash the government to get their way. That's no way to govern. You 
don't like the law, so you crash the government?
  Republicans don't like environmental regulations and the EPA. Are 
they going to crash the government to eliminate them?
  Are they going to crash the government to roll back the Dodd-Frank 
law?
  This sets a horrible and reckless precedent, threatening 200 years of 
governance. There's a better way: Work together with people you 
disagree with to make this a better country.
  Now the Republicans are using a cynical effort to peel Democrats to 
their side. The real way to honor veterans is to uphold the rule of law 
that they fought so hard and sacrificed for.
  The ACA is the law. Let's fight to uphold the law. There will be 
glitches in the ACA, and some things should be improved. Let's work 
together to make it work for all Americans.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleague in the Rules Committee earlier said if we could just get 
a few of us together around the table we could sort this out. I believe 
that. I absolutely believe that. If we could just sit down around the 
table and talk to each other, get together on the facts, we could sort 
this out. But we're not even together on the facts, Mr. Speaker.
  My colleague just talked about how we're taking away 250 years of 
American governance with this government shutdown. I don't celebrate 
this shutdown. I wish the Senate would have come to the table so we 
wouldn't have had a shutdown. But the truth is, Mr. Speaker, in the 16 
years that Republicans have controlled this body, this is the third 
shutdown that has the great misfortune of occurring.
  I came along in the Carter administration. I'm from the State of 
Georgia; President Carter is from the State of Georgia. You go back to 
the Carter administration, come 16 years forward, Democrats controlled 
this institution, shut the government down 15 times. In the Carter 
administration, Mr. Speaker, it was all Democrats--Democrats in the 
White House, Democrats running the U.S. House, Democrats running the 
U.S. Senate, shut down the government five times for more than 50 days. 
I don't celebrate that, but I do recognize that when people refuse to 
sit down and talk to each other that is sometimes the outcome. It 
didn't have to be the outcome this time, but here we are.
  So we can either throw up our hands in disgust or we can start 
pointing the fingers of blame or we can do something about it. Again, 
Mr. Speaker, not one Member of this body has come to the floor to 
attest that the passage of this rule and the passage of these 
underlying bills wouldn't make a difference for American families--and 
the reason they haven't is because they would.
  I understand we're going to continue to disagree, but let's do those 
things on which we agree. These five bills contain the first of those 
ideas. And I commit to my colleagues, if we can begin

[[Page 14970]]

this process today, we can be right back here tomorrow doing more of 
it.
  Wonder of wonders, Mr. Speaker, if we start working together and 
doing those things that we know our constituents want us to do, we 
might just find a way out. We might just make constituents back home 
proud. We can and we should.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlelady from New 
York, and certainly my good friend on the Rules Committee. We see each 
other often in his work, and I know his passion and commitment. And as 
I walked on the floor today, I was listening to him recount history. 
But the history of shutdowns of years past will not help us be guided 
by our hearts and our minds today.
  The American people are asking not for a recounting of historical 
perspective--years past that have been solved, Congresses who came 
together, patriots who stood in the line of fire and have lost their 
lives long since those particular shutdowns have occurred--we owe the 
American people today an answer.
  I just came from the east steps of the United States Capitol. It's a 
very somber place. It's a place of joy, but it's a place of 
remembrance. If my good friend wants to remember anything, he needs to 
remember 9/11, when Members of Congress poured out of this place to 
show America that we were not going to be undermined by terrorists, 
that we were going to stand united together. That was a moment that 
America looked to with pride as we sang ``God Bless America.''
  Today we stood on the steps, standing with Members of Congress who 
actually were wounded in Iraq and veterans who are now Members of 
Congress, and we asked for another moment of unity--unity to be able to 
address real issues in this House, to put 800,000 workers back to work 
who are not working for themselves in the Federal Government but are 
processing veterans' benefits and Social Security and Medicare. We 
asked for this Speaker and this Republican Conference and Tea Party-
driven Members to put all of that aside.
  Let us recount the history of the unity that was shown on those 
steps, so symbolic when we come together--at that time on 9/11, we came 
together as Republicans and Democrats--and vote for a clean CR.
  The idea that national parks are important, they're right, they are 
important. The idea that the National Guard is important, they're 
right, it is important. Right now, Ellington Field is shut down that 
the National Guard in Texas used, and they are there as front liners 
for our borders and needs in that area. It is shut down.
  The National Institutes of Health is one of these bills, D.C. and the 
veterans. All of those are important. But I will tell you, just as 
important are the men and women in the FBI and the DEA, the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, or the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that 
are on the front lines of ensuring the safety and security of America. 
More funding for those in Homeland Security that are not presently 
being funded by fees are very, very important, and that is not on this 
list. So recounting the history doesn't do us any good.
  The National Institutes of Health, all of us who have had conditions 
such as what I've had and surviving breast cancer realize the 
importance of it. But we will not, Mr. Speaker, piecemeal. What we want 
is what we want for America--unity.
  Mr. Speaker, we want a clean CR. Put it on the floor now. We will 
vote now. We will vote now.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my concern with this rule is it 
allows us to debate and vote on four bills. Each of these bills picks 
and chooses what government program should be open, what is most 
important.
  I guess of all these four bills, the one I find the most cynical is 
the one that didn't pass last night under suspension, H.J. Res. 72, the 
partisan resolution that will cut $6 billion from our Nation's veterans 
from what passed the House this last June.

                              {time}  1430

  There are many issues that divide our parties. One of the issues that 
has always received bipartisan support is supporting our Nation's 
heroes and their families.
  Unfortunately, due to the extreme views of some in the majority, this 
Chamber is now considering a resolution that will cut $6.2 billion from 
the VA and excludes funding for several VA programs which are vital to 
the thousands of veterans in my district, including national veterans 
cemeteries, VA construction, and grants for State veterans homes and 
State cemeteries.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's veterans deserve better. I call on this 
Chamber to demand a vote on the full VA for the entire year. Every day 
that goes by without full appropriations for the VA is another day that 
our veterans are being harmed and denied the support and services they 
paid for with blood, sweat, and sacrifice.
  Let me explain it again. This House on a very bipartisan vote in June 
voted for a VA appropriations bill that was $6.6 billion more than what 
we are considering today. So this would be a cut in what we need. In 
fact, even the one in June is not enough. But this makes it even worse. 
That is why this is the most cynical of all these bills.
  What we need to do is come here on the floor and pass a clean CR and 
get the government back to work. Don't pick and choose here, don't 
waste the time of the American people. Let's have a clean CR today and 
vote and get the government back to work today.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to ask my friend 
from Texas whose words had an impact on me.
  My friend from Texas who was talking about the bill we passed in 
June, I happen to share his commitment to that legislation. It is my 
understanding that that legislation is sitting today, as it has been 
since June, in the Senate, and they could take it up and pass it and 
not fund veterans just for a week or 10 days, but fund those programs 
at those levels for the entire year.
  I would ask my friend if he would join with me in calling on the 
Senate to do exactly that.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to my friend from Texas.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I support our veterans. I voted for the one 
in June, like a majority of both our conferences and caucuses. You and 
I can't control the Senate, but we can control what is on the floor 
today. This bill cuts $6 billion, which you and I supported in June. 
That is the issue we have on the floor today.
  I want a clean CR and I would like to have regular order for our 
appropriations. We will deal with the Senate, but we need to get our 
act together here in the House.
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I say to my friend that the clean CR 
that he is advocating so passionately for cuts the exact same $6 
billion that he said is a problem. I agree with him that that's a 
problem. I hope we won't do that. I hope the Senate will take up that 
bill.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Radel), a new Member of this body, but one who brings 
commonsense idea after commonsense idea, bipartisan idea after 
bipartisan idea to the Rules Committee.
  Mr. RADEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for this 
time.
  We are here today trying to do some pretty simple things--trying to 
support our veterans, keep open Veterans Affairs, open up our parks 
around this great Nation, and even keep open schools right here in D.C. 
Heck, I take the Metro every single day. I am here supporting this. Do 
you know what? Even last night we saw House Democrats that are 
supporting the same causes.

[[Page 14971]]

  The problem today really lies with Senate Democrats. They simply are 
refusing to come to the negotiating table just to even talk with us.
  I have been in Washington working through the weekend--many of us 
have been here until 3 in the morning every night working--to simply 
keep the government open. But no offer has been good enough for the 
Senate, not one. They have rejected every single compromise that we 
have sent them.
  Compromise is essential, especially when we have a time of divided 
government, because we are here to pass laws--sometimes repeal them--
but most of all to govern, to give certainty and stability to this 
great Nation.
  We have sent four different bills to the Senate to keep government 
open. All of them have been rejected. We even sent legislation to 
simply offer a small group of Members to come to the negotiating table 
to compromise, again, with the Senate to keep government open. The 
Senate rejected us time and time again.
  It is a sad day when we can't even get Democrat Senators to come to 
just have a conversation with us to keep government open. In fact, this 
is ridiculous. It is a disservice to the American people. I knew 
Washington was broken before coming here, but the Senate's pure refusal 
to even work with the House is an all-time low.
  As a result of the Senate's actions, we now have a government 
officially shut down. Parents all across the country are now worrying 
where their next paycheck is going to come from, how they are going to 
pay their mortgage, how they are going to pay their rent, how they are 
going to put food on their kid's table all because Democrats won't have 
a conversation.
  I don't think it is unreasonable for us in all of these compromises 
that House Republicans--and some House Democrats--I don't think it is 
unreasonable to ask for a simple 1-year delay of the individual 
mandate. After all, the President himself has already delayed ObamaCare 
for big business. Think about that. Big business, big corporations, are 
exempt from this law, but you are not.
  He has delayed this, he has delayed the launch of online enrollment 
for small business, even delayed the Spanish language version of the 
Web site: If you all speak Spanish, good luck--si ustedes hablan 
espanol, buena suerte.
  The President has been willing to exempt everyone from this signature 
piece of legislation, except for you. Yesterday, when you went to 
healthcare.gov to sign up, most people saw glitches and errors. The 
administration has had 3 years--3 years--to build a Web site which a 14 
year old can do in his parents' basement today.
  Again, ObamaCare is just not ready for prime time. All we are asking 
is just for this small piece to be delayed. It is a compromise that I 
think all of us can live with.
  I stand here ready to work with the Senate to get the government open 
and do the right thing for you and this great Nation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), ranking member on the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food 
and Drug Administration.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, give us back our government.
  I am on the Appropriations Committee. We shouldn't be talking about 
CRs; we should be talking about passing appropriations bills. But those 
were stopped, and we are now down to the emergency tool that we have 
had to use over and over again to continue government operations.
  I have been here 20 years. We have done CRs many times. We have 
never, ever had a pre-condition to a CR.
  People are not entitled to make up facts here. The facts are that the 
Senate is negotiating and the House Democrats are negotiating. We came 
up with your numbers. We hate those numbers, but we swallowed them.
  There is only one thing to do--reject this proposition. Vote ``no'' 
on the rule and vote ``no'' on the ability to bring the rule up. We 
have a bill here. It is in the House right now. It is the Senate 
version. It is clean. Send it to the President and before tonight it is 
all over and people can come back to work tomorrow--tomorrow.
  So stop this game playing, this selfishness, this poor loser and this 
whining and just get on with doing the business you were elected to do.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to agree with my 
friend that folks are not entitled to their own facts. The fact is that 
the law of the land is the budget number that the Senate is proposing. 
There is no set of circumstances you can spend a penny more than that. 
In fact, as all of my colleagues know, beginning on January 1 that 
number is going to drop another $19 billion.
  To suggest that the Senate is compromising by agreeing to follow the 
law of the land says a lot about where we are in this town, but it says 
absolutely nothing about genuine compromise.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, if the bills that are on the floor today 
pass unanimously--which they won't--here is what happens next. They go 
to the Senate, the Senate maybe takes them up, maybe doesn't take them 
up, passes them, maybe doesn't pass them, and this whole charade 
continues.
  If you want to get the veterans programs funded today, if you want to 
get the programs for the parks funded today, if you want to get the NIH 
funded today, there is a way to do it. It is to take up the bill that 
the Senate has passed, that the President says he will sign, that at 
least 14 Members of the majority have said publicly they will vote 
for--I think it is many, many more than that--put it on the floor and 
take a vote. That is the way to do this. That bill would go directly to 
the desk of the President of the United States. Before the day is over 
the government would be funded.
  If that is what you really want to do, you would put that bill on the 
floor, and we would take a vote on it. I would just ask any Member of 
the majority to tell us why we can't do that.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it gives me great pleasure to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding), a 
new Member of this body, but a growing leader in this body.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, just hours after the President and Senate 
Democrats refused to compromise, causing our government to shut down, 
ObamaCare exchanges opened for business. Folks across the aisle said 
yesterday was a day to celebrate, but it is clear that is simply not 
the case.
  The President likened the ObamaCare rollout to a new Apple product. 
But the difference is that the American people are not forced to buy 
iPods, and this is not just about buying a new technological gadget, 
but something extremely important and personal--your health care.
  As soon as the ObamaCare exchanges became available online, there 
were immediate problems and glitches. The administration had to know 
millions of Americans would be trying to get on the site yesterday, and 
yet they still didn't account for the traffic.
  Mr. Speaker, not only has the administration forced an individual 
mandate on the American people--they haven't even adequately prepared 
for it. The arrogance of this law is becoming more and more apparent. 
The administration is more concerned about getting ObamaCare off the 
ground than whether or not it actually works.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, last night, the GOP followed through with 
their threat to shut down the government if they didn't get what they 
lacked the votes to obtain--the destruction of health care reform. It 
was staggeringly irresponsible, but the leadership was not willing to 
buck their Tea Party membership and meet even the most basic obligation 
of governance--to keep the lights on.

[[Page 14972]]

  I can only hope that this shutdown is short-lived and we pass a basic 
funding bill soon. A small group of Members cannot be allowed to burn 
the House down when they don't get their way. We simply cannot continue 
to engage in these ``my way or the highway'' exercises every couple of 
months.
  The Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress, signed by the 
President, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Democrats are willing to 
entertain improvements to this landmark law, but we are not seeking to 
undermine or destroy it.
  The worst thing about this latest manmade crisis: our economy might 
have fully recovered long before now if Congress would just get out of 
the way. Let us take up the Senate bill--a clean bill--to keep the 
government running and end this latest manmade disaster.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. All we need is less 
than 20 Republicans and we can open up the government today. You will 
have the Democrats voting to open up the government. Just give us 20 
Republican votes and we can open it today.
  Instead, because of the Ted Cruz Tea Party faction within your caucus 
that somehow has managed to intimidate the Republican leadership, you 
are willing to bring this country to its knees--to furlough 800,000 
Federal employees, to cause suffering around the country, and to cause 
billions of dollars in economic damage to our economy.
  How can you do this? This is so wrong.
  Today, open it, give us 20 Republican votes. Get our country 
functioning again. Let us do our job. This is an outrageous abdication 
of responsibility.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to say to my 
friend I know he has a lot of Federal employees in his district, as do 
I--certainly not as many as he does. I know he speaks from the heart in 
terms of the struggles that those families are going through.
  But I would say to my friend that while that might be his goal, we 
could have taken a step towards it yesterday and all of your VA 
employees would have been back and all of your park service employees 
would have been back and all of your folks who are in the D.C. 
Government would have been protected.

                              {time}  1445

  We could have done it yesterday, and the Democrats defeated it. Now 
we are bringing it back today, but we could have made a difference 
yesterday, and we didn't.
  I would just say to the gentleman that I know his concern for 
everyone is heartfelt, but I wish that he would join me in helping at 
least someone today. We might get all the way there. I believe that we 
can, but we have got to get started. These bills today get us started 
in that direction. Again, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment.
  Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has 
expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds, and I yield to 
the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank my friend from Georgia.
  The problem is that we are creating, really, a politics of 
divisiveness here because we are exempting some agencies at the expense 
of others. Even in the Department of the Interior, we still have 84 
percent of Interior Department employees who will be furloughed even 
when we open up the national parks. The vast majority of Federal 
employees are without jobs. They may not be as visible to the public, 
but it doesn't mean they aren't performing essential services. That's 
the problem--picking and choosing. Tomorrow, we will be back with 
another agency. That's what we are trying to avoid. We are trying to do 
it appropriately.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has 
again expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to say that it 
encourages me that what I hear from my friend is that he doesn't like 
our proposal because he thinks it's a policy of divisiveness, and he 
would like to move toward those things that unite us. I happen to feel 
the same way about these proposals before us.
  I think where the Senate is pushing us is a place that divides us, 
but that these ideas are common-ground ideas that unite us. While we 
may disagree on that, it does give me great encouragement, as I know it 
does my constituents back home, that the goal is to find those things 
that unite us, to focus on those and to move America forward.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it gives me great pleasure to 
yield 1 minute to a leader from the great State of South Carolina (Mr. 
Rice), a good friend of mine and a new Member of this body.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker for the 
minority was complaining of these small continuing resolutions because 
they pick and choose which groups will get funded. That is our exact 
problem with putting this Affordable Care Act into place--the 
President's picking and choosing. We hear it's the law of the land; 
but, actually, the President is deciding what parts of the law of the 
land he wants to put in place. He says he is for the working man, and 
he says he is for the middle class; but, in fact, he has exempted Big 
Business, and he has exempted many of his friends in the unions and so 
forth.
  So if this law is so wonderful and if we are going to put it in place 
and if, as you're saying, we want a whole CR that funds the whole 
government, let's put the whole thing in place that funds every aspect 
the law was designed to apply to. Let's put the whole law in effect. If 
it's the law of the land, let's treat it like the law of the land with 
no exemptions and no waivers. Let's put it into effect exactly like 
it's written.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the gentleman from 
Georgia has any more speakers. If not, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. WOODALL. I very much thank my friend. I do not have any speakers 
remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer 
an amendment to the rule that would allow the House to vote on the 
clean Senate continuing resolution so that we can send it to the 
President for his signature today. I don't want that to be lost on 
anybody. This will probably be the only chance in this House that you 
will get to vote on what everyone has been asking for.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment into 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 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we found out already this morning in the 
Rules Committee, admittedly by the chair, that they don't intend to 
open the government back up. I brought this very same motion today to 
the Rules Committee. It was defeated 9-4 on a party-line vote.
  My hope today lies in all of the people from the other side, my good 
friends, who have said that, if they had an opportunity, they'd open up 
the government again. They would put people back to work and stop the 
terrible pain that we are simply laying on our Federal workers. What we 
have done is simply punish them. What we have done to medical science 
cannot be turned off and on like a faucet, as well as what we have done 
to our security and what we are doing to our intelligence--all of it, 
Mr. Speaker. We cannot do this multiple choice of what we will save 
today, and maybe we will do something else next week if we get a bad 
headline.

[[Page 14973]]

  This is terribly important, this opportunity. I want to give notice 
to all of my friends on the other side to stand up for what you said. 
Today, please put your voting cards where your mouths have been. Vote 
because you know it is the right thing to do--to get this government 
back to work.
  I will remind everybody that the Senate has not been holding us up 
here. The Senate sent a clean CR over early. We have simply ignored it, 
and everything that we have sent back to them has had nothing to do 
with the running of the government, but has had everything to do with 
trying to kill health care.
  Today, let's get ourselves back on track and get this magnificent 
government working again. This country of which we are so proud is 
looking pretty bedraggled right now because we don't know, with this 
lurch from crisis to crisis, what is going to happen from one day to 
the next. This is the day, Mr. Speaker. This is the time. This is the 
opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question. At that point, we will have our opportunity to vote 
on the clean CR that does nothing but continues the spending and allows 
the government to reopen.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend from New York for joining me on the 
floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, it is sad for the House that we have come to 
define a CR as any sort of success whatsoever. Every Member of this 
body knows that, when we talk about CRs, we are just talking about 
varying degrees of failure, because there was a better way that the 
House was obligated to do that we didn't do.
  I want to say to my friends again that no one has said this bill 
won't help. Absolutely, everyone knows this bill will help, but I want 
to reach out my hand once again, Mr. Speaker, and say what my friend 
from South Carolina said moments ago: take your pick. I will meet you 
on your terms. Either let's take these things that we agree on in 
government, and let's fund them--let's pick and choose those things we 
agree on, and let's fund them--or let's fund it all, and let's stop the 
picking and choosing in ObamaCare of what we like. If it's all good, 
let's fund all of the government, and let's obey all of ObamaCare, 
giving those waivers to individuals that Big Business got. If it's not 
good, then let's focus on these things that we unanimously agree are 
good.
  There is a path forward, Mr. Speaker. We can find it together. I 
believe the rule and the bill we have before us today begin to take us 
down that path.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An amendment to H. Res. 370 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       Strike all and insert the following:
       ``Resolved, that immediately upon adoption of this 
     resolution 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, shall be taken from the Speaker's table and the 
     pending question shall be, without intervention of any point 
     of order, whether the House shall recede from its amendment 
     and concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment 
     shall be considered as read. The question shall be debatable 
     for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     question of receding from the House amendment and concurring 
     in the Senate amendment without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question.
       Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.J. Res. 59 as specified in the first 
     section this resolution.''

        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. WOODALL. With that, 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.
  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 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 370, if 
ordered; and approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 197, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 509]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce

[[Page 14974]]


     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     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
     Stockman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--197

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     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
     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
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     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
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Herrera Beutler
     Labrador
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Rush
     Stivers
     Stutzman

                              {time}  1518

  Messrs. BARROW of Georgia and GARCIA changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 198, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 510]

                               YEAS--228

     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
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     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
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--198

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     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
     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
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     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

[[Page 14975]]


     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Graves (GA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Rush

                              {time}  1527

  Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________