[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15417-15425]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         HEAD START CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
371, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 84) making continuing 
appropriations for Head Start for fiscal year 2014, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 371, the joint resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 84

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of 
     applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds, 
     for Head Start for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, 
     namely:
       Sec. 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary, at a rate 
     for operations as provided in the Full-Year Continuing 
     Appropriations Act, 2013 (division F of Public Law 113-6) and 
     under the authority and conditions provided in such Act, for 
     continuing all projects or activities under the Head Start 
     Act (including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) 
     that are not otherwise specifically provided for in this 
     joint resolution, that were conducted in fiscal year 2013, 
     and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were 
     made available by such Act under the heading ``Department of 
     Health and Human Services--Administration for Children and 
     Families, Children and Families Services Programs''.
       (b) The rate for operations provided by subsection (a) for 
     each project or activity shall be calculated to reflect the 
     full amount of any reduction required in fiscal year 2013 
     pursuant to--
       (1) any provision of division G of the Consolidated and 
     Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-
     6), including section 3004; and
       (2) the Presidential sequestration order dated March 1, 
     2013, except as attributable to budget authority made 
     available by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 
     (Public Law 113-2).
       Sec. 102.  Appropriations made by section 101 shall be 
     available to the extent and in the manner that would be 
     provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
       Sec. 103.  Unless otherwise provided for in this joint 
     resolution or in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal 
     year 2014, appropriations and funds made available and 
     authority granted pursuant to this joint resolution shall be 
     available until whichever of the following first occurs: (1) 
     the enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or 
     activity provided for in this joint resolution; (2) the 
     enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act for 
     fiscal year 2014 without any provision for such project or 
     activity; or (3) December 15, 2013.
       Sec. 104.  Expenditures made pursuant to this joint 
     resolution shall be charged to the applicable appropriation, 
     fund, or authorization whenever a bill in which such 
     applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization is contained 
     is enacted into law.
       Sec. 105.  This joint resolution shall be implemented so 
     that only the most limited funding action of that permitted 
     in the joint resolution shall be taken in order to provide 
     for continuation of projects and activities.
       Sec. 106.  Amounts made available under section 101 for 
     civilian personnel compensation and benefits in each 
     department and agency may be apportioned up to the rate for 
     operations necessary to avoid furloughs within such 
     department or agency, consistent with the applicable 
     appropriations Act for fiscal year 2013, except that such 
     authority provided under this section shall not be used until 
     after the department or agency has taken all necessary 
     actions to reduce or defer non-personnel-related 
     administrative expenses.
       Sec. 107.  It is the sense of Congress that this joint 
     resolution may also be referred to as the ``Head Start for 
     Low-Income Children Act''.
        This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Head Start 
     Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 40 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 84, and that I may 
include tabular material on the same.

[[Page 15418]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today to present H.J. Res. 84, the Head Start for Low-Income 
Children Act. This bill provides Federal funding at the current, post-
sequester rate for the Head Start program, which millions of children 
across the country rely on to fulfill their educational and health 
needs.
  As we work our way out of this government shutdown mess, we shouldn't 
let some of our most vulnerable citizens--low-income children with no 
recourse--suffer. In my home State of Kentucky, 20,715 kids rely on 
Head Start to provide a helping hand. If we don't do anything about 
this today, 2,800 kids in Kentucky will lose access to Head Start 
programs starting November 1.
  This bill provides funding for Head Start at an annual rate of $7.586 
billion. This funding will help reopen the doors to the more than 1,600 
Head Start programs across the country. As before, the funding will 
last until December 15 or until we enact full-year appropriations.
  This is another step the House is taking to alleviate the burden of 
this current fiscal dilemma and move us closer to ending the government 
shutdown.
  The nine bills the House has passed since October 1 to reopen the 
government--this will be the 10th--constitute nearly one-third of the 
Federal Government's discretionary budget. These 10 bills fund very 
critical programs, cleanly, as the Senate has demanded, and have been 
supported on a bipartisan basis in this House.
  So why are these bills still sitting on Harry Reid's desk?
  Why is the Senate not making every stride it can to help our Nation's 
disadvantaged children, hungry families, and our veterans?
  This method of funding the government is not my preferred way, Mr. 
Speaker, nor is it the standard, but while we work to find an end to 
the shutdown, we should fund those programs we can as soon as we can.
  I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will take this opportunity to 
meet us at the negotiating table. We've got a great deal to work out, 
but this can't be done if we are not willing to talk and listen to each 
other.
  It is the time-honored way, Mr. Speaker. When the two bodies disagree 
on something, each body passes a bill, and we send it to conference 
with the other body. That's what should be done here.
  In fact, this body, several days ago now, appointed conferees on this 
topic and sent it over to the Senate, only to be met by a loud snore.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I want us to get together and talk about ending this 
shutdown. Though I wish we were able to end the shutdown in its 
entirety, this bill will at least reopen one indispensable government 
program and lessen the toll that the shutdown is taking on the American 
people.
  This Congress is facing a great deal of difficult choices in the near 
future, but taking care of our children should be a top priority. I 
urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the reckless Republican shutdown. I wish my 
Republican colleagues had shown this same level of concern for Head 
Start earlier in the year when the majority proposed to slash the 
Labor-HHS spending bill by 22 percent. The majority did not have the 
courage of their convictions to stand behind their cuts and even 
release a copy of their bill.
  Today's bill does nothing to help families afford child care or to 
invest in other pre-K services that are so important for children's 
development.
  Even if House Republicans' piecemeal bills were enacted, at the rate 
they're going, it will take until after Christmas before the government 
is fully up and running. The Republican plan is completely 
irresponsible.
  We could end the shutdown today if the Speaker allowed a vote. 
Democrats have negotiated, and we didn't just meet in the middle. We 
agreed to the Republican spending level in the stopgap bill, but 
Republicans insist on repealing the Affordable Care Act, including 
allowing insurance companies to deny care to children.
  Vote ``no'' on this bill. Demand the House vote to immediately end 
the reckless Republican shutdown.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), who is the chair of the House 
Administration Committee.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly thank the chairman for yielding 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I strongly support the Head Start 
program, and I am so hopeful that the House will pass this bill today 
and, certainly, that the United States Senate will take it up as well.
  Head Start is a program that helps American children get the extra 
help that they need at an early age. I'll tell you, you can talk to any 
mother or grandmother. You don't need some scientific study to tell you 
that this program, an early intervention, is absolutely critical to 
making sure that every child can optimize their individual potential 
and to achieve their own opportunities.
  During this shutdown, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about 
ObamaCare, but this bill has nothing to do with ObamaCare, absolutely 
zero to do with ObamaCare. This bill is about America's children, about 
Head Start. There are no strings attached. It just funds Head Start.
  Now, I know that many of our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle say that they can't support any funding bill unless they get 
exactly what they want, which is an entire continuing resolution to 
finance the entire government. They want exactly what they want, 
otherwise they can't do this kind of a thing. And yet, it is 
interesting to note that they call Republicans ``absolutists.''
  Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, many others on the other side of the aisle 
will support this funding bill for Head Start, as they have supported 
these other funding bills that we have been passing since the beginning 
of the shutdown, in a bipartisan way.
  President Obama and the Senate majority leader keep saying that they 
will not negotiate, but I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker that they will 
negotiate and that we can go to a conference committee, that we can 
work out our differences, that we can stop the shutdown, because to 
just keep saying, as the President keeps saying and the Senate Majority 
Leader keeps saying, that they will not negotiate on funding the 
government and they will not negotiate on raising the debt ceiling, I 
do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that that is a proper way forward. 
Certainly, on issues like American children, we can put politics aside.

                              {time}  1245

  Mrs. LOWEY. Before I yield to my next speaker, I would like to make 
it clear that we negotiated a spending bill. We took the Republican 
number. Let us pass that spending bill. Speaker Boehner should bring it 
to the floor at your number and then raise the debt ceiling. Then there 
is plenty of time to negotiate on all the outstanding issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady 
from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I join the National Head Start 
Association in opposing this bill.
  At a time when our Nation's at-risk families are suffering on 
multiple levels due to sequestration and the Republican government 
shutdown, a piecemeal approach like this one is not in anyone's best 
interest. This disingenuous Republican effort would selectively fund 
some education programs while failing to provide funding for others 
that poor children and their families rely on.
  The National School Lunch Program, the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program, Title I, after-school, special education, and rural 
education programs, among others, are all left out of

[[Page 15419]]

this bill. It's unconscionable that our Nation's most vulnerable 
children are being denied Head Start services because of Speaker 
Boehner's refusal to bring to the floor a clean bill to open the 
government.
  Let's stop this charade of pitting seniors against children, veterans 
against families, one group of Americans against another. Let's open 
the government and serve all our countrymen.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder), a member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. YODER. I thank the chairman from Kentucky for his work on this 
legislation to help provide funding for Head Start kids to have an 
opportunity to realize all the opportunities that life presents.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask us to work together and set aside 
our differences for the good of the American people.
  We are divided. We have an ongoing dispute about whether Congress 
should receive special treatment and whether individuals should be 
given the same exemptions that businesses have been given under the 
Affordable Care Act. That is in dispute.
  Why can't we go forward with legislation and policies and things that 
we all agree on? The Senate has a position and the House has a 
position, and we can go on and on with this debate about whether we 
should fund special treatment for Congress, businesses, and labor 
unions under ObamaCare; but there are unnecessary casualties to that 
debate.
  Today, we have an opportunity to take Head Start off the table--a 
program that serves 1,146,468 kids nationwide; and 1,436 of these young 
students are in Kansas' Third District. These vulnerable students need 
our help. These are kids with little opportunity, disadvantaged by 
poverty and circumstances that put them behind from day one. Head Start 
for low-income children is a ray of hope, coming at a critical time 
when these young learners are developing their young minds.
  Head Start works for students, Head Start works for families, and 
Head Start works for the American taxpayer. So why can't we come to an 
agreement as to the funding for this portion of government? We can't 
come to it for every portion--we get that--but we are in agreement that 
this shutdown is unnecessary and that we can fund Head Start today.
  For some, this is a philosophical debate, but for the young learners 
at Head Start of Shawnee Mission, Kansas; Olathe, Kansas; or the 
Children's Campus in Kansas City, these are real lives and real futures 
at stake. They are counting on us. Surely we can take our partisan hats 
off for a moment and fund a bill to get each of these kids a chance to 
succeed.
  Let's pass a clean bill that funds Head Start today. Let's put aside 
our differences. Let's find common ground. We have the power today to 
take Head Start kids out of this debate and ensure their funding.
  Let's show the American people that today, on this issue, on these 
kids, there is no disagreement.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) control the remainder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlewoman from New York, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Government of the United States of America has now 
been closed for a full week. People are out of work. Some are even 
going hungry. Our economy is poised on the brink of a disastrous 
default, and yet this Republican majority continues to play political 
games with the future of our country and the lives and health of 
American families.
  The hostage being negotiated today is Head Start, one of the true 
American success stories. Unquestionably, it is the most effective 
early childhood development program ever developed, and I've heard so 
often from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how 
unsuccessful the program is and what a terrible program it is and that 
we ought to cut it.
  For almost 50 years now, Head Start has provided comprehensive 
childhood development, literacy, and family services to nearly 30 
million preschoolers from low-income and working families. It now 
serves nearly 1 million children every year. It's an example of how 
dedicated teachers, with the help of a smart Federal investment, can 
enrich the lives of our citizens--the cornerstone of our efforts to 
close the achievement gap--combat poverty, and provide all kids with 
the opportunity to thrive.
  It is another important Federal program that Republicans are claiming 
to support today in full defiance of their previous voting record. It 
is as if the majority expects that we have all forgotten the positions 
they have been promoting for years--up to this point. We have not 
forgotten.
  I am the ranking member of the subcommittee that oversees Head Start 
funding, and I have had to continually fight tooth and nail to see this 
program adequately funded and to protect it from the deep cuts put 
forward by the majority.
  In 2011, the very first bill the Republican majority passed tried to 
cut Head Start by over a billion dollars; and 218,000 kids would have 
been cut from the rolls, 16,000 classrooms closed, and 55,000 teachers, 
assistants, and staff would have lost their jobs.
  That was the majority's opening offer, and they didn't blink an eye. 
Parent, teachers, and advocates stood up and said ``no'' to these cuts, 
and the majority had to back down.
  Instead, what they're doing now would be automatic cuts, the across-
the-board cuts known as sequestration, which was never meant to become 
law. They're using that to do their work for them. Because of those 
cuts, this majority has voted to make permanent that 57,000 students 
all across America have already lost access to Head Start. Even the 
children who are able to remain in Head Start can expect shortened 
school days, elimination of home visits, and teacher layoffs. In total, 
78,000 children have lost access to this early learning since this 
House majority took office, and those sequester cuts will grow worse 
over time.
  This is a self-inflicted government shutdown. Head Start centers are 
being forced to close. The longer the majority perpetuates this 
shutdown, the more kids are being denied an opportunity to learn.
  I'm happy to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle embrace 
the importance of early childhood education. President Obama has called 
for universal preschool, which would make a profound and positive 
difference for children and their families across the country; but this 
Republican majority turned its back on that proposal, walked away from 
it, and didn't even consider it.
  Let's stop playing games with people's lives, their health, and our 
children's future. It is little wonder that, according to the latest 
polls, a full 70 percent of the country opposes this hostage-taking and 
wants us to get back to work.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what I just 
heard. The gentlelady was describing the importance of the Head Start 
program in glowing terms, and yet she turns around and tells us she's 
going to vote against funding for the Head Start program. That's a 
puzzle to me.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Lee), a member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, first of all, we all know that 
we're 8 days into this Tea Party Republican government shutdown with 
$2.4 billion in lost economic activity. This hostage-taking continues.
  The Tea Party Republicans continue to want to deny millions of 
Americans health care. That's why this shutdown continues, and the 
public knows this.
  Because of the devastating sequester, already more than 57,000 
students have

[[Page 15420]]

lost their Head Start spots. At the same time, the Tea Party 
Republicans insisted on cutting food stamps by $40 billion for these 
same children.
  So you can't tell me that today they care about these kids when they 
fight to cut Head Start and every other program for young people in the 
Appropriations Committee.
  The National Head Start Association doesn't buy this very sinister 
approach, which will not reopen the government. They know that there 
are enough votes to open the government up if Speaker Boehner brings 
the Senate budget bill to the floor.
  Also, let me just say many Democrats did not want the funding level 
of the Senate budget bill, but compromised just to get the government 
open.
  Let's shut down this shutdown.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the chairman of the full 
committee, the National Head Start Association has said--I'm commenting 
on this sham of a bill before the House today--that they are opposed to 
this effort because they realize that it is a charade. I think it's 
important to note that. They are certainly committed--and have been for 
years--in terms of early-learning education and education for our 
children, but they, too, understand what is happening here today.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is now the second week of the Republican shutdown 
of our government--shut down because they want to put insurance 
companies back in charge of America's health care.
  Republicans in the House think they can get out of this horrible mess 
they created by partially opening one part of the government or 
another. Today, it's Head Start--a program I strongly support and one 
that used to be supported on a bipartisan basis to provide education, 
health and nutrition services to at-risk children.
  When Republicans voted to shut down the government, they closed the 
doors on thousands of these children and their families. After several 
bad news articles about the Republicans shutting down Head Start, they 
now want to partially open it.
  Keep in mind, restoring funding to Head Start only serves a small 
percentage of at-risk children who need preschool and are eligible for 
it. It is not enough to restore one set of early-learning services for 
at-risk children but to not fund the Child Care and Development Block 
Grant, special education services, and the Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families, which provides early childhood services for children 
from low-income families as well.
  If the Republicans are serious about supporting early childhood 
education, we should vote on the clean, Senate-passed budget to reopen 
the government so that services for those kids and their families can 
be fully restored.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We should have that vote today.
  It's time to stop the Republican shutdown. I call on the Speaker to 
let us vote. Let us vote. Let us vote on a bill to open the whole 
government.
  As of today, enough Republicans have publicly stated that they're 
ready to join all of the Democrats to vote to open the government. 
Republicans should allow the House to vote on the Senate bill--a bill 
that was negotiated by the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, and the 
leader of the Senate, Mr. Reid, but was rejected by the Republican 
caucus.
  Bring that bill to the floor. Let us vote, and let these children get 
these services.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, a quote from the National Head Start 
Association:

       The proposed Head Start for Low-Income Children Act, while 
     attempting to provide a funding extension for Head Start, 
     does not put forward a true solution to the government 
     shutdown.

  I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, the definition of ``farce'' is: a foolish 
show, mockery, a ridiculous sham.
  Now, this Head Start funding bill and cry for providing a head start 
for our low-income children is indeed a false start at this 22 percent 
sequestration level. The politicians' mantra that education is the key 
does not pass the laugh test where our babies are locked out and out of 
luck--no LIHEAP, immunizations, disability education assistance. This 
is a key to what--a key to a government careening toward default? It is 
a government that has defaulted on the future of our children.
  Let's shut down the shutdown.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to read a headline from 
Connecticut's Hartford Courant: ``Head Start Memo: Nearly 1,000 
Children Shut Out.''
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  You will find no stronger supporter of the Head Start program than I. 
For years, I worked first as a teacher in Head Start, and later I was a 
supervisor for Parent Involvement and Volunteer Services.
  I know Head Start. The experience was life changing--inspiring me to 
join the war on poverty and dedicate myself to improving the lives of 
low-income children and families. Thanks to Head Start, thousands of 
children have been put on a solid path to a well-rounded education.
  Head Start teaches children to feel good about themselves, to have a 
positive self-image. Head Start introduced children to books and 
reading and to how to resolve conflicts. We gave full examination and 
discovered educational disabilities, and we gave them the path to good 
health services.
  The opposite side of the aisle claims they support Head Start and 
early childhood education, but they supported sequestration that has 
robbed 57,000 children of the opportunity to be in the Head Start 
program.
  This Republican destructive strategy--picking winners and losers, who 
will survive and who will not--is not the right way to go.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. WATERS. Put a clean CR on the floor so that we can vote for all 
of government to be protected. Don't pit children against veterans, et 
cetera.
  I will not be bullied into supporting this measure. I urge my 
colleagues to stand with me. Despite my love for this program, I must 
vote against this measure.
  I ask my colleagues to stand up to these Republican tricks and vote 
``no.''
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am really puzzled. We hear speaker after speaker on 
the other side tell us how committed they are to these poor children in 
the Head Start program, and yet here's the chance, Mr. Speaker, to 
continue this program. Yes, it does not include the entire government, 
but are we going to hold hostage these kids from poor families who are 
desperate for this program. Are we going to hold them hostage, or are 
we going to go ahead and approve this short-term funding for the Head 
Start program?
  If you believe in Head Start, it seems to me you would stand in the 
well and say: I support this bill because it continues the Head Start 
program.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just comment for a moment in that I think that it 
is not a question of holding these children hostage. You are holding 
the entire Nation hostage for an effort that is not

[[Page 15421]]

going to change, and that is: the Affordable Care Act is the law of the 
land.
  Let's have a vote on this floor of the House of Representatives. We 
can reopen this government and not hold anyone hostage any longer.
  If my memory serves me well, in 2011, the gentleman, whom I do have 
great respect for, voted for H.R. 1--and maybe it was his bill that he 
passed--which would have cut Head Start by over $1 billion.
  It is puzzling to me that all of a sudden my Republican colleagues 
have gotten religion on the Head Start program. It is so inconsistent 
with where this majority has been with regard to Head Start and so 
disingenuous and duplicitous that we know it is a political ploy.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Republican shutdown is a 
disaster for families across America and this great country, and we are 
not fooled by this political gimmick on the floor today. It is a 
gimmick; it is a gimmick; it is a gimmick.
  The Republican position in this Congress, as demonstrated in their 
budget, has been to slash support for Head Start students. I know this; 
Head Start parents know this; Head Start teachers know this; and our 
communities back home know it all too well. In fact, in the House 
Budget Committee just this past March, Democrats offered an amendment 
to eliminate the severe Republican cuts to education and Head Start 
students and to stop the layoffs of teachers. Republicans scoffed, just 
like they are scoffing at their basic responsibility to negotiate and 
pass a budget and keep government working.
  Mr. Speaker, when you shut down Head Start classrooms, did you know 
that the parents of these students may not be able to go to work or 
keep their jobs? That is not smart. Head Start keeps parents working or 
studying for their own degree so they can move out of poverty into the 
middle class.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield the gentlewoman 10 seconds.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. So I urge Speaker Boehner to bring a clean 
bill to the floor that funds the U.S. Government, not these political 
gimmicks.
  Enough of the gimmicks. We know we have 200 Democrats ready to 
support a clean CR and at least 20 or so Republicans. End these 
political gimmicks. Fund the government. End this calamity for American 
families.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I think the best way to 
resolve this debate is to ask a simple factual question.
  There are two approaches here. The majority approach wants to pass 
this piecemeal bill. We want--``we,'' meaning the entire Democratic 
Caucus and enough Republicans to pass it--we want to take up the Senate 
clean bill and vote on it now.
  Which of these two approaches would provide the most help most 
quickly to the Head Start centers across the country? Which would 
really help the program?
  If this bill passes, it will languish in the current political 
turmoil and go nowhere. If the Speaker puts on the floor the clean 
Senate continuing resolution, it will pass this afternoon, and the Head 
Start centers that are afflicted by this problem all over the country 
will open tomorrow morning.
  If you care about helping the Head Start program, you will vote in 
favor of the Senate bill.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because I 
actually think Head Start is an important program, and I've supported 
it. I've seen and I've gone to Head Starts throughout my district and 
have read to the kids who are there. The reforms that were done that 
made it more of an educational preschool type of atmosphere--that was 
done, gee, I don't know, probably about 7 or 8 years ago--I think 
actually helped improve Head Start, making sure that children are ready 
when they start regular K-12. So I support this.
  This is important, and in this atmosphere where it is all or nothing 
and no negotiations--we're not going to talk to you--we are left doing 
these micro or minivan-type bills in which we take the most important, 
essential programs and say, you know, we agree with you that Head Start 
is a worthwhile program and that it's worth funding. So why don't we 
just work together and agree that we will fund Head Start at the budget 
level.
  I heard comments earlier about some Republicans wanted to cut it, and 
yes, there are going to be some that do. So if you think that it's that 
cynical, call us on it. Vote for it. You want Head Start to continue, 
and you think we're being cynical with this? Call us on it. Vote for 
it.
  Let's send a bipartisan measure over to the Senate, and force them to 
vote for it. What's the worst thing that's going to happen? Oh, Head 
Start gets funded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleague who just spoke, vote 
for it. Let's take the bill that was passed in the Senate, bring it 
here. There are apparently enough votes to reopen this government. Vote 
for it.
  Why be afraid of the process? That's what we do here--we vote. Bring 
the bill here. Let's open it up and take our chances. What are we 
afraid of? What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that, in fact, some 
Republicans will join all of the Democrats to pass a bill that reopens 
the Federal Government and protects these children, protects our 
veterans, protects our workers, protects everyone? There is just a fear 
and a loathing here which I truly do not understand.
  With regard to Head Start and other early childhood education 
programs, we know what those economic dividends are. It's about 
productivity; it's about prosperity; but it's about the quality of 
their lives and their futures. That's what ``Head Start'' means.
  Given the record of this majority and its past actions in cutting 
funding over and over and over again for Head Start, it just proves how 
disingenuous this gimmick is here today. They're playing to the crowd, 
but the crowd isn't listening. No one will forget what you have done.
  In fact, Head Start graduates are less likely to need special 
education services, to be left back a grade, or to get into trouble 
with the law. They're more likely to go on to college and to have a 
professional career. It is a program, yes, that works wonders, which is 
why we've all been surprised and dismayed by our Republicans and their 
attempts to slash this funding in the past.
  May I ask the gentleman if he has any additional speakers or if he is 
going to close?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and 
I am prepared to close.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am dismayed, but we are all 
dismayed. We have fought these battles on Head Start in the committee. 
As to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, who sits on 
the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, we fought over and over and over again in 
talking about how important this program is; and day after day after 
day after day, we have been told that the facts belie themselves, that 
this is not a successful program, that kids aren't learning. They have 
dug up studies from 20 years ago to tell us that this program doesn't 
work. All of a sudden, today, they think that there is merit in Head 
Start?
  I hope this extends to what the President has asked for in universal 
early

[[Page 15422]]

childhood education. Do you know that the Labor-HHS Subcommittee never 
even saw a markup, nor did they ever mention, with their draft 
proposal, early childhood education? They dismissed the President's 
view of early childhood education and providing universal early 
education for kids; and now, today, they stand before this body and 
this Nation and say they support this effort.
  Let me just tell you, this is more of the reason why the hostage-
taking by the majority has to end. Every day, we waste time with these 
gimmicks mortgages our kids' futures and our future as a Nation. It's 
not responsible governing, and it's time for it to end.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard here today what we have heard in the last 
several days from the other side--that they will not vote for any of 
these individual bills because we are not bringing the entire 
continuing resolution before the House.
  But let me point out: with this bill--the 10th in this series that we 
brought out in a so-called piecemeal fashion--it will take us to about 
a third of the CR, the original continuing resolution. So we are 
passing the continuing resolution one piece at a time, but nevertheless 
we are passing a continuing resolution.
  To say that I am not going to vote for this bill because you don't 
have all of the bills before us doesn't have much logic to it. It means 
that every bill that comes before the House could be argued the same 
way: I won't vote for that bill because it doesn't fund whatever or 
enact whatever piece of legislation that is waiting in the wings.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this is about Head Start. It is not about health 
care; it is not about procedure; it is not about whether or not this is 
piecemeal or full, or what have you. It is about Head Start. If you 
believe in the Head Start program and the hundreds of thousands of 
young children in this country--and families--that are depending on 
this program, it seems to me you would lay everything else aside and 
vote for that program, which I am asking our Members to do as I close.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for Head Start and my opposition to this legislation, which locks in 
the automatic cuts to funding for this critical program.
  A high-quality early education puts children on a path to succeed 
academically and in life. Decades of research and data show that 
investments in high-quality early education help close the achievement 
gap, increase high school graduation rates, and reduce the need for 
special education. These investments also lower the rates of criminal 
activity and dependence on public assistance. In fact, one study found 
that for every dollar invested in high-quality early education, 
taxpayers saved $7 in other costs.
  When first entering school, a child's health, emotional well-being, 
and social surroundings are all factors in their ability to succeed 
academically. Head Start recognizes this and, in turn, merges literacy 
and math activities with access to vision screenings and other basic 
health care services.
  Additionally, the program brings parents into the development process 
by providing them with support services in and out of the home, such as 
access to social workers, peer counseling, and parenting programs.
  In my state of Pennsylvania, Head Start centers serve more than 
37,000 children, but now, this unnecessary government shutdown 
threatens this important program. Already, Head Start programs in six 
states have been shuttered as a result of the federal government 
shutdown. This is unacceptable.
  Instead of playing games, House Republicans should join Democrats in 
finding a solution to this shutdown. It is time pass a clean CR, reopen 
the government, and allow all children access to early education.
  Our nation deserves better. Our children deserve better.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.J. Res 84, Head 
Start for Low-Income Children Act. Head Start represents an innovative 
idea from a Democratic led Congress that was created for the education 
of our smallest citizens who come for poor or low income households.
  We know that if these children have an early start in education it 
levels the playing field of life and they can have an equal opportunity 
to succeed.
  Families in my district who rely on Federal Government programs like 
Head Start are hurting. The pain did not start with the shutdown, but 
with sequestration which hit Head Start programs for 3 to 4 year olds 
in the Houston Area hard: $5,341 million dollar cut, 109 employees cut, 
699 slots for children cut.
  On October 2, I joined hundreds of Head Start supporters from across 
the country and many of my colleagues to protest the closing of Head 
Start programs due to the Federal Government shutdown.
  I picked up one of the tiny blue chairs that represented the 
thousands of Head Start children from around the nation and said that 
an empty Head Start chair represents a future doctor, engineer, 
president, or teacher who is at risk because of the Federal Government 
shutdown.
  My support of Head Start and Early Head Start is based on what I have 
seen and heard about programs like the AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start 
program serving parents and children in the 18th Congressional 
District.
  The AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start is a program serving low income 
families in my Houston Texas District.
  I visited with AVANCE-Houston administrators earlier this month 
because I wanted to get an update on how low-income families with 
infants and toddlers and pregnant women served by the program were 
doing.
  The AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start's mission is simple. AVANCE-
Houston works for healthy prenatal outcomes for pregnant women, enhance 
the development of very young children, and promote healthy family 
functioning.
  AVANCE-Houston serves nearly 1,800 children city wide. Each of these 
families and their children are suffering the effect of the legislative 
malpractice of the House majority.
  The sequestration has cost Head Start and Early Head Start: AVANCE-
Houston lost $842,518.
  The impact to the AVANCE-Houston Head Start employees, teachers and 
administrators of the first wave of lost funds were: Furlough days, 
hiring freeze, extra workloads, morale level, outsource of custodial 
services.
  In Houston, Head Start families and their children saw a reduction of 
days of operation; increase concerns about loss of services for their 
children and Hardy Center closure
  AVANCE-Houston absorbed the sequestration reduction in federal funds 
by:
  Reducing enrollment by 3.3% which ended access to the program for 72 
children; Eliminating 11 Early Head Start and 9 Head Start Teachers and 
Support staff, and 12 custodial positions; and
  AVANCE-Houston facing a Federal Government shutdown now must consider 
what it might mean to their future:
  Possible loss of services for an already underserved population;
  Increased costs of operation-Lease cost, building maintenance, 
medical insurance rates, unemployment, and worker's comp;
  Maintenance of competitive salaries;
  High staff turnover;
  Limited dollars for new initiatives/curriculum.
  I know many of my colleagues on the other side of aisle speak about 
reforming malpractice lawsuit rights of victims, but what the public is 
seeing in the legislative malpractice of my colleagues in the majority.
  When there are no perceived consequences for bad behavior or harm 
caused to another there are no incentives to stop the bad behavior.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is legislative malpractice because it does not 
address the earlier cuts to Federal Government employees and programs 
caused by sequestration and makes worse an already bad financial 
situation for our government's most important assets--Federal workers.
  The importance of Federal workers and the critical programs or 
services they administer like Head Start in our Congressional Districts 
cannot be understated.
  The Houston Chronicle reported that due to sequestration it had 
already caused Head Start children and their parents pain.
  This school year, a parent Marlen Rosas hoped her 3-year-old son, 
Hector, would be attending Head Start so that he might learn English.
  Her modest hopes for her son were that he would eventually earn the 
high school diploma she never had the opportunity to earn.
  But when Ms. Rosas went to enroll Hector--even though he met all the 
qualifications for the federal Head Start program--Hecter was turned 
down.
  Ms. Rosas said, ``I'm sad because he wanted to go to school,'' Rosas 
said through an interpreter. ``He only speaks Spanish, and that

[[Page 15423]]

would be one of the advantages: for him to socialize with those who 
speak English, while learning the names of colors and numbers--just to 
be learning.
  A couple made a contribution of $10 million to open Head Start 
Programs in 11 states for 7,000 kids from low-income families could 
continue to receive educational services. I commend this couple for 
their generosity of heart to assist some of the Head Start Children 
impacted by this curl majority led Federal Government shutdown.
  The legislative malpractice of representing to the American public 
that the Federal Government is comprised of dismembered parts that can 
be funded without regard for what one part does or how one agency 
contributes to the work of other agencies.
  It is like building a car with no regard for what a part does and how 
it would function when installed--because the purpose of car is 
transportation.
  The purpose of the House of Representatives is to fund the Federal 
Government--what we are doing will not accomplish the outcome.
  Those who control the House of Representatives is making a cruel 
tragedy out of the budget process by teasing Federal employees who 
watch while the House majority toy with their lives by passing one 
funding bill at a time.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority should stop playing games with the American 
public and pass the clean funding bill from the Senate that would fund 
the entire Federal Government including all programs immediately.
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 
84, the Head Start for Low-Income Children Act.
  Since its inception in 1965, Head Start has served over 30 million 
children and their families. The program's purpose has always been to 
serve children and pregnant women in centers, family homes, and in 
family child care homes in urban, suburban, and rural communities 
throughout our nation.
  Last year, California Head Start received over $900 million in 
federal funding and taught over 111,000 children. In California, there 
are almost 23,000 Head Start employees serving children and their 
families.
  My rural, low-income district relies heavily on the Head Start 
Program. Without it, families across the Central Valley would be unable 
to ensure proper care and early education of their young children.
  Just last week, two of my constituents flew across the country to 
appeal to me and my California colleagues on the devastating impacts of 
this drawn-out shutdown on the Head Start Program.
  After passage, this bill would provide immediate funding for the 
nation's Head Start program at the same rate and under the same 
conditions as were in effect last year ensuring that Head Start 
programs across the country will be able to keep providing education, 
health, nutrition and additional services to our 1 million enrolled 
children and their families.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my 
opposition to H.J. Res. 84, the Head Start for Low-Income Children Act. 
While I appreciate the concern for the harmful effects of the shutdown 
on Head Start and am deeply troubled by the children cut off from Head 
Start services, I am unable to support this funding bill. A far better 
approach to undoing the damage caused by this shutdown is to pass a 
clean continuing resolution, CR, that funds the entire government.
  On the heels of devastating sequester cuts which caused more than 
57,000 children to lose their Head Start slots--over 4,000 of whom live 
in Texas--this shutdown continues to harm even more of America's most 
vulnerable families. Already, thousands of children have been affected 
by Head Start program closures and reduced services due to a lack of 
federal support from this crisis and thousands more children are at 
risk of losing their seats in classrooms as the shutdown continues.
  However, this piecemeal approach to funding Head Start fails to 
provide America's children with the same support as a fully operational 
government through a clean CR. The populations served by Head Start 
often rely on many other vital programs that provide critical 
assistance to students who are most in need, such as the National 
School Lunch Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP), special education programs, and Title I programs, none of which 
are included in this funding bill.
  The implication of students losing vital classroom time, nutrition, 
and instruction is severe and only makes the mission of improving 
student achievement and closing achievement gaps that much more 
difficult.
  I urge my colleagues to immediately pass a clean CR and reopen the 
full government so we can put an end to the current political stalemate 
and bring the focus back on undoing the harmful effects of the 
sequester.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, after months of refusing Democratic 
calls to negotiate a replacement to the sequester that slashed over 
$400 million from the Head Start budget this year and eliminated slots 
for 50,000 children, I'm pleased to see some of my Republican 
colleagues acknowledging the importance of this early education 
program. However, to truly serve these kids and their families, we 
should pass a clean CR that will immediately send funding to those 
centers that did not receive their payments last week and then we 
should work together to replace the damaging sequester cuts.
  A clean CR would reopen all programs for vulnerable children and 
their families. It would provide funding for the Community Action 
Agencies that represent one-third of all Head Start grantees. It would 
fund child care programs that help parents find affordable and safe 
places for their children when the Head Start day ends. And it would 
fund the Social Services Block Grant that helps fill gaps in services 
to help low-income families get back on their feet.
  All of these vital programs are ignored in the resolution on the 
Floor today. I urge the Speaker to let the House vote on the Senate-
passed CR and reopen the government now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 371, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the joint 
resolution?
  Mrs. CAPPS. Yes, I am opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Capps moves to recommit the joint resolution H.J. Res. 
     84 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:
     That upon passage of this joint resolution by the House of 
     Representatives, the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making 
     continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other 
     purposes, as amended by the Senate on September 27, 2013, 
     shall be considered to have been taken from the Speaker's 
     table and the House shall be considered to have (1) receded 
     from its amendment; and (2) concurred in the Senate 
     amendment.

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentlelady's motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to speak on this topic.
  I worked for decades in our Nation's public schools as a school 
nurse, and I saw firsthand in my community the tremendous effects that 
Head Start programs have for so many of our most vulnerable children.
  No one is a stronger supporter of this program, but today is really 
not about the children of Head Start or their families. Today is about 
ending the childish behavior of those of the Republican leadership, who 
continue to stand in the way of reopening our government.
  Let me be clear: we are here today because one faction of one party 
in one House of Congress has shut down the United States Government 
because they don't like one law--the Affordable Care Act. This is a law 
that was passed by this Congress; it was affirmed by the Supreme Court; 
and it was a focal point of the last election in which the candidate 
for president who supported the law won.
  But none of this matters to our Republican colleagues. Instead, they 
have let their obsession with repealing the Affordable Care Act bring 
our entire Federal Government to a screeching halt.
  Mr. Speaker, this piecemeal approach pushed by my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to reopen certain parts of the government is 
merely a facade. It is a ``gimmick,'' as my colleague referred to it, 
giving the illusion that they are trying to fix the problem, but they 
are not.

[[Page 15424]]

  Instead, we find ourselves here picking and choosing and waiting for 
them to decide whose lucky day it is to be funded by the Republican 
leadership. This is not the way to run a great Nation.
  Even if we reopen Head Start programs, what about the millions of 
other students that benefit from programs administered by the 
Department of Education? What about the families who cannot get their 
childcare vouchers? What about the job-training programs to help the 
unemployed parents get back on their feet? How long do they have to 
wait, Mr. Speaker, until we get around to funding their programs? When 
is their lucky day?
  We cannot continue government funding by picking programs out of a 
hat. If the House leadership really wanted to fix the problem, they 
could do so today if they would just bring a clean continuing 
resolution to the House floor for a straight up or down vote.
  At least 25 of our Republican colleagues have publicly supported a 
vote for a clean continuing resolution. That is enough votes to end the 
shutdown today--we know it, the Speaker knows it, and the American 
people know it--but we are still waiting.
  Now, let me say it again: This government shutdown does not have to 
continue. We can end it right now.
  My amendment today is the ninth time that Democrats have provided a 
solution to end the government shutdown. It is the only way to get a 
vote on the clean negotiated continuing resolution today.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take this 
opportunity to stop wasting time. We must reopen the government, and we 
must get back to our work, which is to rebuild our economy, to support 
our veterans, to pass a farm bill, and to address the many other 
challenges that this great Nation of ours faces. To do so, we need to 
stop playing these games.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues, including my many Republican 
colleagues who have called for a vote on a clean CR, to join me today 
and to end this charade. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the 
instructions contained in the motion violate clause 7 of rule XVI which 
requires that an amendment be germane to the bill under consideration.
  As the Chair recently ruled on October 2, 3, 4, and 7, 2013, the 
instructions contain a special order of business within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules, and, therefore, the amendment 
is not germane to the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, doesn't the bill before us fund only a 
portion of the Federal Government?
  My motion to recommit would open up the entire Federal Government so 
that all of our education programs are there for all of our children 
and families. Can the Chair explain, please, why it is not germane to 
open all of the Nation's education programs?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Kentucky makes a point of order that the 
instructions proposed in the motion to recommit offered by the 
gentlewoman from California are not germane.
  The joint resolution extends funding relating to Head Start. The 
instructions in the motion propose an order of business of the House.
  As the Chair ruled on October 2, October 3, October 4, and October 7, 
2013, a motion to recommit proposing an order of business of the House 
is not germane to a measure providing for the appropriation of funds on 
committee jurisdiction grounds.
  Therefore, the instructions propose a non-germane amendment. The 
point of order is sustained.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the 
table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by a 5-minute vote 
on passage of the joint resolution, if arising without further 
proceedings in recommittal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 191, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 529]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     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
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     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 (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
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--191

     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
     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
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa

[[Page 15425]]


     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     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
     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)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Clay
     Gallego
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Honda
     Lucas
     McCarthy (NY)
     Richmond
     Rogers (AL)
     Rush
     Thompson (MS)
     Visclosky
     Whitfield
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1349

  Messrs. CAPUANO and SMITH of Washington changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. YODER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248, 
noes 168, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 530]

                               AYES--248

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     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
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garcia
     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
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--168

     Andrews
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Clay
     Gallego
     Gutierrez
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Honda
     Johnson (GA)
     Lucas
     McCarthy (NY)
     Richmond
     Rogers (AL)
     Rush
     Thompson (MS)
     Visclosky
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1356

  So the joint resolution was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 529--Motion to Table Ruling 
of the Chair; and 530--Passage of H.J. Res. 84, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________