[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15445-15453]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1815
    DEFICIT REDUCTION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH WORKING GROUP ACT OF 2013

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 373, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 3273) to establish a bicameral working group on 
deficit reduction and economic growth, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 373, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3273

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Deficit Reduction and 
     Economic Growth Working Group Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. BICAMERAL WORKING GROUP ON DEFICIT REDUCTION AND 
                   ECONOMIC GROWTH.

       (a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a bicameral 
     working group to be known as the ``Bicameral Working Group on 
     Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth'' (hereinafter referred 
     to as the ``working group'').
       (b) Purpose.--The working group shall recommend to the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate--
       (1) overall levels of discretionary spending, including for 
     the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2014;
       (2) changes in the statutory limit on the public debt; and
       (3) reforms in direct spending programs.
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) The working group shall be comprised of 20 members to 
     be appointed as follows:
       (A) The Speaker shall appoint 10 Members of the House of 
     Representatives, of which one shall be designated as House 
     co-chair and 4 shall be on the recommendation of the minority 
     leader of the House of Representatives.
       (B) The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint 10 
     Senators, of which one shall be designated as Senate co-chair 
     and 4 shall be on the recommendation of the minority leader 
     of the Senate.
       (2) Any vacancy occurring in the membership of the working 
     group shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     designation was made.
       (3) Each appointment under this subsection shall be made 
     not later than one calendar day after enactment of this Act.
       (d) Meetings.--The members of the working group shall meet 
     not later than one calendar day after their appointment 
     pursuant to subsection (c) and shall meet on each calendar 
     day thereafter unless both co-chairs jointly determine that 
     there is good cause to dispense with such meeting.
       (e) Adoption of Recommendations.--The working group may not 
     report any recommendation unless it receives the support of a 
     majority of the members appointed by both the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives and the majority leader of the 
     Senate.
       (f) Report.--
       (1) The working group shall report its recommendations, 
     including any legislative language required to implement 
     those recommendations, to the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate within 3 calendar days after their adoption.
       (2) The report shall be referred in the House of 
     Representatives by the Speaker in accordance with clause 2 of 
     rule XIV.
       (3) The report shall include any supplemental, minority, or 
     additional views submitted to the co-chairs prior to its 
     transmission pursuant to paragraph (1).
       (g) Termination.--The working group shall terminate 
     immediately after transmission of the report under subsection 
     (f).
       (h) Rulemaking.--The provisions of this section are enacted 
     by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such 
     they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, 
     respectively, or of that House to which they specifically 
     apply, and such rules shall supercede other rules only to the 
     extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such 
     House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same 
     extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.

  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 Rules.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members may have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous materials on H.R. 3273.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It has been 1 week since the Federal Government shut down. In that 
time, House Republicans have passed several appropriations bills 
designed to provide funding for numerous parts of the government's most 
important functions. Additionally, we've invited Senate Democrats to 
join us at the negotiating table to find a commonsense solution to our 
Nation's fiscal problems.
  Unfortunately, no one over these 3 weeks has been able to reach a 
compromise, and Senate Democrats have simply returned our volley every 
time without a value-added proposition. So what we are here to do today 
is to stand up once again and say we believe we are trying to 
appropriately fund the Federal Government.
  As a result, we are here today. House Republicans are going to offer 
to sit down at the negotiation table with Senate Democrats in an effort 
to reach the meaningful solutions our constituents expect from us.
  H.R. 3273, the Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working Group 
Act of 2013, would establish a bicameral, bipartisan working group 
consisting of six Members of the majority and four Members of the 
minority from both the House and the Senate. These 20 Members would be 
appointed no less than 1 day after enactment of the legislation and 
would meet each subsequent calendar day to provide recommendations to 
overall discretionary spending levels for fiscal year 2014, changes to 
the discretionary debt limit, and reforms to direct spending programs.
  Mr. Speaker, being from Texas, I am used to a lot of people trying to 
work for the good--the common good--of its people. I will tell you that 
I fully expect that the reason I came to Washington was to work for the 
good and not for just the people of Texas, but to accept the 
responsibility. It was important that I come to work for all people in 
Texas and the American people to make their lives better. I believe 
that some of those ideas include sitting down, talking, negotiating, 
finding common ground, leading--not obstructing, not saying ``no,'' not 
being the first one to walk out or not agreeing to meet, but, rather, 
to sit down and be constructive.
  That is what we in the House of Representatives are trying to do once 
again today with a common set of principles. We believe 
constitutionally, as the House of Representatives, we have the 
authority and the responsibility to be leaders in the process that will 
allow the American people to effectively see who is here, who is 
working,

[[Page 15446]]

and expect us to get our job done. Unfortunately, it's a rough world, 
and we're having a tough time, so a new idea today is to gather our 
colleagues together from each side and see if we can make progress.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank the gentleman, my good friend from Texas, who yielded the 
time.
  I rise today obviously in strong opposition to this measure. I would 
say to my friend, I just heard him just a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, say 
that the people from Texas sent him here to do things. Well, the people 
from Florida sent me here to do things just like him. There are 435 
Members in this institution, in addition to delegates from around our 
territories, and each one of them has an unequivocal and clear 
understanding about how to go about budgeting in this particular 
matter.
  Forming a working group is forming another group up above that group. 
I don't need that, and I don't believe he needs that. I don't need it. 
Evidently, we haven't done very well when we've had it. From the 
newspapers today, I gathered that we had a Simpson-Bowles Commission, 
which people forget was the legacy of the 2010 debt ceiling increase. 
We had the Domenici-Rivlin commission. We had the Cantor-Biden talks. 
We had the Obama-Boehner debt ceiling negotiation, the Gang of Six 
talks, the supercommittee, and then the Obama-Boehner fiscal cliff 
talks. Not one of them worked, and this mess isn't going to work 
either.
  It's sort of like, Mr. Speaker, moving the hostages, since they're 
taking them one by one here with this rifle-shot approach to 
legislating, when, in fact, all they have to do is put a clean CR on 
the floor and we could pass it, and they know that. But basically what 
they're doing is saying, Okay, we're going to take some hostages over 
here; then we're going to put them in another room with some more 
people so that they can talk to them.
  I said in the Rules Committee, and I repeat: this is a gimmick 
wrapped in a con inside a scam, and nothing tells me anything different 
about my friends across the aisle who've offered gimmick after gimmick 
instead of doing what they know is right.
  We can open the government, and that's easy to do. We can put 
Americans back to work, and that's easy to do. We can keep our country 
from defaulting on its obligations. This measure will do none of those 
things, not one of them.
  In all that talk about the President, the President made it very 
clear today that he's willing to negotiate. Evidently--and I picked up 
on this--my friends on the other side must have poll-tested 
conversation. Well, conversation allows, among other things, that you 
have an exploratory understanding with people in an informal setting.
  What have we been talking about around here for 2 years? We've been 
talking about this mess. This didn't just come up last night or the day 
before yesterday. Democrats have already offered seven times to take up 
the Senate-passed continuing resolution. The House GOP has blocked a 
vote on the measure each and every time. For 6 months, we've been 
asking these people to conference.
  To the House Republican leadership I say, Mr. Speaker, let us vote on 
a clean CR. Let us raise the debt ceiling. Why prolong this shutdown 
when you know that the votes are here in the House of Representatives?
  My friends across the aisle know they've made a mistake. The 
goalposts have not only moved; they have vanished completely from the 
field. First, they want to defund ObamaCare. Then they only want to 
delay ObamaCare. Then when that didn't work, they said, well, we don't 
want to shut the government down, so let's open it up piece by piece. 
Evidently, that isn't working either, so they're now down here, moaning 
and groaning about the fact that the Senate isn't going to take up 
something that's foolish because they've made it clear that they want 
this to be a measure that's not a part of any negotiations or 
conversation; and the President made it clear that he will converse 
with anybody about anything but not with a gun at his head and not with 
the kind of undertaking that you are going forward here.
  So now it's a working group, another supercommittee. How did that 
work out for you the last time, I ask my friends, if you would, Mr. 
Speaker?
  So tell me, where does it all end? In all seriousness, what do my 
friends across the aisle hope to achieve?
  Speaker Boehner has said: ``My goal here is to have a serious 
conversation''--he said it 27 times ``conversation'' on Sunday; I was 
looking at him when he said it--``about those things that are driving 
the deficit and driving the debt up, and the President's refusal to sit 
down and have a conversation about this is putting our Nation at risk 
of default.''
  At 11:38 today, the President's office issued a statement wherein 
they had a conversation today with John Boehner, in essence, telling 
him virtually that we can do this with a clean CR.
  What have we been talking about? Why are we even here? What are we 
talking about now? Are we having a conversation, or are we just talking 
past each other here in the House of Representatives? Republicans have 
shut down the Federal Government and taken us to the brink of a global 
economic catastrophe because, evidently, they want to have a 
conversation that we are already in the middle of.
  Guess what? The Senate CR is at the levels you wanted--$986 billion. 
That's what they voted on. Sequestration is the law, as my friend from 
Georgia is fond of saying, ``the law of the land.'' You've already 
gotten what you wanted. Let's just vote on a clean CR. Let us raise the 
debt ceiling. This shutdown and looming debt ceiling breach are 
failures of the majority's leadership to stand up against the 
extremists within their own party, elected on a platform of 
obstructionism that borders on insurrection.
  Leaders, you say on the other side, must be strong. Leaders must be 
courageous. This has become not a democracy that was intended by 
Jefferson and Madison and Adams and all of those that were our 
Founders, the Franklins and the Washingtons. They founded a democracy 
in spite of their divisions. They did not want to have mobocracy. 
That's what you've allowed to stand up in your part of this 
institution, a mob.
  Mr. Speaker, let us end these games with a strong bipartisan message. 
We can show the rest of the world that the United States is ready to 
end its political brinksmanship.
  When I was a child and I would speak out of turn, my dad and my 
grandmother would say: Sit down and shut up. We don't need a shutdown. 
We don't need people being shut out. What we need to do is shut up and 
let the American people cause us to listen to them and go about the 
business of bringing a clean CR down here. That's what I'm hearing from 
the American people, both Republican and Democrat, liberal and 
conservative, that they want us to sit down and shut up and open up 
this government with a clean CR.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party hears the gentleman. We are also 
listening to the American people. The American people are sick and 
worried about their future. They see a government that spends too much 
money and listens too little. They tax too much and leave too little 
for the American people. They are very aware that this Big Government 
ploy and play by not just this administration, but the prior 
administration that ran this House of Representatives, placed America 
in a detrimental position, in a position where we have health care that 
is a government-run health care plan, that is causing not just 
uncertainty, but unemployment. Republicans got into this whole mess of 
the debate with ObamaCare because it got closer and closer and closer 
to implementation.
  Let's look at what this bill tactically does. It tactically puts 
rules and regulations on business. That means that

[[Page 15447]]

business arbitrarily will make decisions literally to cut not only the 
amount of people that they have, but the work hours associated with 
that. Many unions across the United States are concerned about the loss 
of the 40-hour workweek because that's the threshold that Democrats 
have placed the American worker in.
  So the Republican Party, in listening not just to business, but 
workers, made a determination that the closer we got to this 
implementation, we were going to continue discussing how bad this was 
for not just business, but for individuals.
  Then the President came and unilaterally decided he would let 
businesses be deferred for a year, but kept the rules and regulations 
on individuals. That was done over Fourth of July, just in a tweet that 
went out. They weren't even brave enough to put the full announcement 
out.
  So now the Republicans have focused since the Fourth of July on the 
unfairness about how individuals will be expected to apply all of these 
laws directly on them as individuals. See, what the American people 
understand is, it is almost impossible to fight as an individual 
against a big government, against the IRS, and it's the IRS who will be 
making sure that the American people follow this tax law.

                              {time}  1830

  That is what the Supreme Court said it is. It is a tax law.
  That is where lots of groups around the country continue to speak, 
not only clearly, but with effectiveness, about how it is unfair for 
the President to give 1,200 waivers and a waiver to certain people who 
were included in the bill--business--and now he is going to waive that 
but put it off on individuals.
  These are small business owners. They are men and women who are not 
just our neighbors. They are men and women who produce the goods and 
services, who put their name on their businesses, who have their 
children become teachers and firefighters and members of our military.
  They see where this is harming their ability to have health care. It 
is harming their ability to have the opportunity for their small 
business to be successful because it is putting them at a disadvantage. 
Perhaps worst of all, there are lots of businesses who understand that 
this will cost an incredible amount of money, and that is why 
businesses will not offer the exact same health care plan that they had 
previously--UPS, all the way to Delta Air Lines, and lots of other 
companies.
  That is why it is very timely--it is very timely--that Republicans 
have been doing this all year, but we focused on this directly at the 
implementation.
  We are here for a good reason. We are trying to now change the 
dynamics with a working group. We are trying to say we believe that 
some of our colleagues would have a better opportunity to negotiate 
with some good ideas. Trust me, there are good ideas that float back 
and forth between Republicans and Democrats all the time. We are trying 
to say that a successful ``rain dance'' has a lot to do with timing.
  That success can be accepting this working group, getting our Members 
together on a bipartisan basis--House and Senate--immediately within a 
day or so, and then start working together. Do you know what? Even if 
they weren't the final answer, what a great opportunity to empower our 
Members to talk and work together and see if they can make headway.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to 
tell both sides how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the Speaker.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York, Mrs. Nita Lowey, my good friend and an appropriator supreme.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, a quick review of the facts makes clear that 
Republicans are revising history when they claim Democrats refuse to 
negotiate.
  A headline yesterday from National Journal sums it up:

       Nineteen Times Democrats Tried to Negotiate With 
     Republicans: The GOP's biggest talking point of the shutdown 
     is only true if you ignore everything that has happened 
     before last weekend.

  House Republicans' failure to negotiate includes: their leadership 
walking out of negotiations last December; ignoring the President's $4 
trillion deficit reduction plan; refusing for months to negotiate on 
the budget with the Senate; and now denying the House a vote to end the 
shutdown after Democrats agreed to their spending levels.
  Of course we will work with you, my friends, on honest efforts. 
President Obama signed a bipartisan $2.5 trillion deficit reduction 
law, and the deficit today is half of what it was in 2009. We are 
willing partners who will compromise.
  But to suggest that we need a special committee to tell us what we 
already know is just not sincere. This bill is an attempt to shift 
blame for this shutdown. Speaker Boehner should stop trying to find 
somebody else to do his job. He can end the shutdown today by allowing 
a vote on the Republican-written and Senate-passed CR, which would get 
a majority vote in the House and be signed by the President.
  Reopen the government. Do not jeopardize the full faith and credit of 
the United States. Stop wasting time on political stunts like this bill 
while Americans suffer. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would thankfully acknowledge the floor of the House of 
Representatives here for voting on several very, very important items 
that allow those employees that today might not be at work. We have 
asked that they come back to work, and it was passed here--those in 
food and drug security, those in Head Start, those in national 
emergency disaster recovery, those in the NIH, and those in national 
parks.
  These are an example of the ideas that have come forth from votes on 
this floor. And soon to come--intelligence, border security, Native 
Americans, and Alaskan health care, national weather monitoring, 
nuclear weapons security, and nutrition assistance for women and 
children.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I put to you most sincerely: 
Do you not feel that by cherry-picking what it is that you want to do 
with these rifle shots, that it is causing a morale problem in the rest 
of the government?
  Let's assume that you have 150 that you are going to do, and the 
group that would be going back to work the latest would be sometime the 
week after next or sometime 2 weeks from there.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman for 
asking. My dear friend, very respectfully, has asked a good question.
  As a matter of fact, we would like to move forward with all 150 as 
quickly as possible. What we would like to do is move through these. 
We've got them now. They are lined up to go to our colleagues on the 
other side of the Capitol. But they don't want to do that.
  Why would I move forward if they don't want to do that? Why would we 
move forward if they do not actually really want to open up the 
government except under their terms?
  We believe that they have not addressed the underlying problems:
  Number one, what is happening with this thing called ObamaCare, and 
secondly, with the debt? We are adding debt as we speak. We have gone 
from $9- to $17 trillion in just a few short years.
  We have been working with the President. We have been doing things in 
the 3 years that Republicans have been back in the majority. We are 
trying to correct the errors of the past. That is why we are here 
today.
  The gentleman asked a good question: Wouldn't it be a good thing to 
get through our list of 150? I would say to the gentleman, we have 
already done some and we will keep doing them.

[[Page 15448]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. In the vernacular, they just say ``bring 
it.'' Put all 150 of them down here and we would have a clean CR.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), one of the most distinguished Members that 
has served in the House of Representatives, my good friend, the 
minority whip of my party, who may very well answer that question that 
I asked about morale.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman pointed out, the morale is low for 
approximately 315 million people who call America home; low because 
they see a dysfunctional board of directors of their country; low 
because they are anguished about the inability to come to grips with 
reality.
  I want to tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Rules 
Committee, we said ``yes.'' You sent us a bill to the United States 
Senate, which we control, and you said, Let us open government, and we 
will open it on the condition that we cap spending at $986 billion.
  Now, you also put another piece on that bill which said we ought to 
defund ObamaCare--the Affordable Care Act, as we call it. I venture to 
say that close to 90, maybe even 100 percent, on your side of the 
aisle, Mr. Chairman--I say to him, Mr. Speaker--didn't think that was 
going to happen. They said it because they feel strongly, Mr. Speaker, 
about that. I understand that. I have strong feelings myself.
  Now, the gentleman, my colleague from Maryland, I hope is going to 
use the analogy about ``vetoing'' the debt limit because it is a good 
one. But I will tell my friend the Senate said ``yes'' and sent it back 
here.
  We could open the government this evening if only you would accept 
what you suggested, if only you would say, ``Yes, you agreed with our 
number.''
  There was no negotiation, there was no compromise on our side. There 
was a saying to you: We want to keep the government open, so yes. Our 
Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives and the Senate 
said, Mr. Speaker, we will take your number. America needs to know that 
we have said ``yes'' to the number that you suggested.
  I don't like your number. I think it is not good for America, Mr. 
Speaker. I think it is not good for our national security, for our 
economy, or for the morale of the American people long term.
  Having said that, I want government open, so we have said ``yes'' to 
your number. We didn't negotiate. We said, ``We will take what you 
propose.''
  Mr. Speaker, I hope every American understands that when one side 
says, ``We'll take your number,'' that there ought to be an agreement.
  Now, I rise in opposition to this bill that has been put on the 
floor, which is another way to distract from the business at hand--
opening up our government. Eight days from now our government will be 
in a position for the first time in history where we won't be able to 
pay our bills. The wealthiest Nation on the face of the Earth, the most 
creditworthy Nation on the face of the Earth, will be in a position not 
that we don't have the resources, not that we don't have the credit to 
borrow to make sure that we continue to be able to pay our bills--that 
won't be the case. It will be the case that we don't have the authority 
to do so because this Congress has not acted.
  I tell my friend, Mr. Speaker, who chairs the Rules Committee and 
whose father served with such distinction as the head of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. The present head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
Mr. Comey, says that this sequester and budget number will deeply hurt 
law enforcement in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I talked to my colleagues, let's defeat this bill, and 
let's move to the business that is real, that will make a difference, 
not make a political point. Let us move to doing the business of 
America and put the people's government back to work, not pretend that 
we are going to do it by some supercommittee. We tried that. It didn't 
work very well. I am sorry about that. I urged them to stay in business 
and do their job.
  I ask my colleagues, defeat this, move to the business of America, 
put the people's government back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, this House has a responsibility to reopen government.
  We can vote on a bill within the hour that would reopen the entire 
government--and we know the votes are there to pass it.
  Two hundred Democrats are on record that we will vote to reopen the 
government, and there are media reports that twenty-five Republicans 
will do so as well.
  So let's find out: put a bill on the floor to reopen government, and 
let the House work its will.
  Democrats are also ready to work with republicans to prevent a 
default.
  Once we end the shutdown and remove the threat of default, Democrats 
want to sit down and talk in a bipartisan way--as we have asked to do 
for months--and work out a long-term solution to our nation's fiscal 
challenges.
  But the plan on the floor today won't do that.
  It is a pretense, not a substantive action.
  It does not reopen government, nor does it ensure America pays its 
bills.
  And it is not a real mechanism to reach a broader agreement on fiscal 
issues.
  It does not have a deadline for action--nor does it require a vote on 
any recommendations the committee would produce.
  And, it is not a balanced approach, as it precludes the consideration 
of any new revenue whatsoever.
  This is just more of the same from the Tea Party-driven Republican 
conference that isn't serious about reducing the deficit in a balanced 
and sustainable way.
  Instead of wasting more time on these reckless and irresponsible 
gimmicks, we ought to be taking responsible steps to end the shutdown, 
prevent a default, and then work together to achieve real, long-term 
fiscal solutions.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As the gentleman knows, there are few people in this House who I have 
a better relationship than I do with the gentleman from Maryland. With 
great respect, I listened to him and his words.
  I would say back to him there is a little bit more that really comes 
to us from people who speak about their lives also. I am concerned 
about people who are not only working for our great government and 
people who receive services, but we are also trying--without to make a 
point--we are trying to make changes in the Affordable Care Act, which 
is also known as ObamaCare.

                              {time}  1845

  There are several things about the Affordable Care Act that render 
that title difficult to understand, because the Affordable Care Act, 
within a year the Congressional Budget Office said they believed it 
would be at least twice as expensive as it was originally thought it 
would be.
  Secondly, some 70 percent more people will be in the system because 
they provided a figure that did not match what they expect now for 
people to be in it from people who moved off of their worker plans, 
their insurance plans.
  Third, the President stood right here one State of the Union and said 
there won't be a dime of taxpayer money.
  And lastly, the President of the United States said:

       And if you like your insurance, I guarantee you, you can 
     keep it.

  But, Mr. Speaker, what has happened since then is this administration 
was incapable of providing information about how this would work. And 
even to today, after the announcement was made, people are going onto 
the Web site and learning more about these exchanges.
  The largest cardiology group in America, cardiologists--heart 
doctors--were not even included or asked to be in the exchange. Not 
even given a chance to say no, thank you, the largest cardiology group 
in America.
  So now the American people are looking at it and saying, my doctor's 
not even included, so who is included because my doctor is not, and now 
I am

[[Page 15449]]

looking at this plan that is very expensive. Granted, New York City, 
the State of New York was less because they had a very expensive plan, 
and it's true in some places it is less. But the best doctors or the 
doctors that people went to are not even included in those plans now. 
As an example, as I said, the largest cardiology group, the most 
experienced cardiologists, the ones you want to go to for Medicare, for 
Medicaid, and for your health insurance, are not even going to be 
included in the government plan.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is just one example about the disappointment 
that the American people have because they were told one thing, and 
they're going to get something else. Because you're fighting the 
government, we have to do it in such a public way. If we simply 
followed the law, and the contract or the express contract did not 
equal what came out the other end, you could go to court and sue for 
it. But you can't sue the government over this. So we are litigating 
this actually, Mr. Speaker, right before your eyes in a very public 
way, saying that we believe this health care, known as ObamaCare, 
should not be entered into lightly.
  We better understand what we're doing, and we're asking for a lot of 
changes. Those changes are: we think we ought to delay it; we think we 
ought to defer it; we think we ought to wait on it. We have, in 
essence, backed up every single time from our demand, and now we've 
gotten to a point where we, as Republicans in our discussion through 
legislation with the Senate, have now gotten to the point where we've 
said, We are where we're going to be. Now we're going to try and open 
up the government and we're going to try and make it work. That's the 
facts of the case, and that's just the way it is.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thought we were here about 
the working group, but it does come out in the wash: we really are here 
about ObamaCare.
  I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member on the Budget Committee.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida. As the 
gentleman said, we discovered right now that the government is still 
shut down because our Republican colleagues want to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, when in fact we could open the 
government right now by passing the bill that's in our possession.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about negotiation because 
the President and the Democrats in Congress have been trying to have a 
budget negotiation with our Republican colleagues all year long. In 
fact, in March, the House passed its budget, and in March, the Senate 
passed its budget. And just like the textbook says, you're then 
supposed to have a negotiation between the House and the Senate to 
negotiate your differences to reach a compromise. What happened? The 
Speaker of the House refused to appoint negotiators from the House. We 
tried three times to get a vote; each time the Speaker said ``no.''
  In the United States Senate, on 18 occasions, in fact 19 now, the 
Democratic leader and Senator Murray tried to get consent to have a 
budget negotiation between the House and Senate. On 18 occasions, 
Senate Republicans said ``no.'' They didn't want to talk. They didn't 
want to negotiate. So the clock ticked until we got down to government 
shutdown. And then what happened?
  The Speaker of the House and the Senate Democratic leader had a 
negotiation. On Sunday on national television, the Speaker of the House 
told the country that he had a negotiation with Senator Reid. They had 
gotten a deal. But guess what? The Speaker reneged on the agreement. 
Why? He told us that, too. He couldn't sell it to a reckless faction of 
his own party. He wanted to allow that faction of the party to run the 
country and shut down the government.
  Now what are our Republican colleagues saying? That they're not going 
to let us pay our bills on time unless we adopt the Republican budget 
agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleagues--and I think this is an 
important question for the country--if the President of the United 
States said that he would veto a debt ceiling bill, that he would veto 
legislation to pay the country's bills on time unless Republicans 
adopted the President's budget and the President's agenda, our 
Republican colleagues would say he'd lost his mind. Our Republican 
colleagues would probably start impeachment proceedings. And yet, 
that's exactly what they're doing. They're saying that they won't take 
responsibility in joining us to pay our country's bills on time unless 
we adopt the Republican budget agenda unless we say let's get rid of 
the Affordable Care Act, unless we do everything their way.
  Again, if the President was to take that position, you would say he 
was off his rocker. So now, our Republican colleagues are coming up 
with a fake committee where it actually sets the rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman.
  So after all this refusal to negotiate, you now want to set up a fake 
committee on deficit reduction where you refuse to even include the 
idea of reducing the deficit in part by shutting down tax breaks for 
big oil companies because you don't want to use one penny of revenue, 
even from closing tax loopholes, to reduce the debt and deficit. I hear 
from my colleagues how important it is to reduce the debt--and it 
absolutely is--but apparently it's not important enough to shut down 
one tax loophole for special interests.
  End this sham. Vote on the Senate bill. Open the government.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is some truth to this. I and the 
Speaker and the majority leader and the whip and our conference do not 
want to have anything that would empower somebody to raise taxes. But 
we did want to empower that we would allow maybe Mr. Dingell, the Dean 
of the House, maybe Mr. Van Hollen, maybe Mr. Hastings, to be part of a 
committee, a working group that would sit down with their colleagues 
and speak honestly--and maybe Mrs. Lowey--speak honestly about how we 
get out of this mess that we all have.
  And as a working group, as a working group with no dictates but how 
you've got to do what you're going to do, no timeframe except you have 
to go meet, and you've got to be successful, and it's going to be about 
these items. In other words, make ``the big deal'' the big deal. And 
the big deal right now is spending, debt, and how we do something to 
get this government back to work. That's what I think the legislation 
does.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\3/
4\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Well, for a week now, the Republicans said no to a CR 
funding the entire government unless there was defunding of health care 
reform. That was the bludgeon. It did not work.
  So the Republicans shut down the government. It turns out that tactic 
was in the works for a year, as described in The New York Times 
yesterday:

       One morning in a location the Members insist on keeping 
     secret, came a little-noticed ``blueprint to defund 
     ObamaCare'' signed by leaders of more than three dozen 
     conservative groups. It articulated a take-no-prisoners 
     legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative 
     circles: that Republicans could derail the health care 
     overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push 
     fellow Republicans--including their cautious leaders--into 
     cutting off financing for the entire government.

  So now we have a shift. Keep the government shut down, let government 
not pay its bills. Why? Because the Speaker said it would be 
``unconditional surrender.'' That isn't what's needed. We don't need 
another supercommittee. What we need is to be allowed to vote.
  This poster shows 195 Democrats willing to reopen the government; 22

[[Page 15450]]

Republicans on record. That's a majority of the House. Mr. Speaker, let 
democracy prevail. Let us vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 1\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the balance of my time to my good 
friend, the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this debate is a bizarre 
experience for those of us who have been urging negotiation on the 
budget for a year. ``Take the President up on his overture of last 
December,'' we've said to our Republican friends. ``Let's go to a 
conference with the Senate and work out a budget.'' But the Republicans 
have steadfastly refused. They have run out the clock. And why did they 
do that? So that in a crisis atmosphere, they could demand a ransom for 
doing our basic duty--keeping the government open and paying our bills.
  Well, that's extortion, and it's way over the line. We can't do that. 
In fact, we need to open the government. We could do it tonight. The 
votes are here if the Speaker would simply permit a vote. We could 
reopen the government immediately.
  I promise you once we do our basic duty, we will be happy immediately 
to do what we should have been doing all along, and that is to 
negotiate a budget plan, a budget plan that puts everything on the 
table: revenues, entitlement, all categories of spending, a budget plan 
that secures this country's economic future and ends this charade that 
the Republicans have put us through here as the new fiscal year begins.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, we're here because Republicans want us to move forward 
with a process that is very important. We've had a number of times that 
the gentlewoman, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, 
Mrs. Lowey, we've had the great young chairman from Kentucky, Mr. 
Rogers, chairman of Appropriations, come up to the committee and talk 
very clearly about their ideas about moving forward to get things done.

                              {time}  1900

  I don't know that they would be the representatives of this body, but 
I bet they would be and I bet you that they could make real progress, 
along with, perhaps, Mr. Van Hollen and others who are awesome Members 
on their side, Members who are committed to getting the work done.
  But this is a fight, and it's a fight that goes all the way to our 
friends in the Senate and all the way to the President. As best I can 
tell you, just as I started, I will end today. I will say that today's 
stalemate is the making of the President. This is his making. He places 
his own political power, I believe, above the Constitution, wanting to 
dictate policies instead of negotiating them with a duly elected branch 
of government, and that's the House of Representatives.
  I hope that the American people take note of what's happening. The 
President is different from his predecessors not in terms of greatness, 
but rather to the degree to which he's willing to sacrifice this 
Nation's greatness. He's willing to take us to the brink, rather than 
offering his negotiating skill-set and getting people together. That is 
what we should be about.
  The Speaker of the House has literally instructed us to get a working 
group together, gather it on a bipartisan basis, and see if we can make 
progress not with the President, not with the Speaker, not with the 
Senate Majority Leader, but among Members of this body who we know and 
who we respect. Let's gather us together, and let's get together, and 
let's make a difference. That's what we're trying to suggest today. I 
will tell you that my colleagues that have been here on the floor, 
including the great minority whip, I believe have the ability to make 
this success happen if we will work together. That's what I'm for.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 
3273, the so-called ``Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working 
Group Act of 2013,'' which establishes another supercommittee to make 
recommendations on spending and changes in the statutory limit on the 
public debt, the latest gimmick of the Tea Party dominated Republican 
majority to extricate themselves from the fiasco they created when they 
voted to shut down the government.
  The bill before us is a bad idea brought up at the worst possible 
time. The bill seeks to recreate the `super-committee' Frankenstein 
monster that failed its assigned task and ended up giving us the 
Frankenstein monster called sequestration.
  We have been there and done that. We are not going down that road 
again.
  Additionally, this bill is not a genuine effort to reach an agreement 
on budget and fiscal priorities. If that were the case, House 
Republicans would not have rejected the numerous requests of House and 
Senate Democrats over the past six months to go to conference to reach 
an agreement.
  Let us review the record leading up to the Republican shutdown and 
the cost of the recklessness course of action:
  $150 million a day--The price-tag for closing down the government. In 
1995, the record three-week closing cost $1.9 billion in today's 
dollars.
  800,000-plus--Federal employees expected to be furloughed as a result 
of the GOP's irresponsible shutdown.
  192--The number of days House Republicans have refused to negotiate 
on a federal budget, setting the stage for a GOP government shutdown.
  128--The number of points the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped on 
Monday in reaction to the GOP shutdown.
  72--Percent of American voters opposed to Congress shutting down the 
federal government to block implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
  68--Percent of Americans who say shutting down the federal government 
even for a few days is a bad thing for the country.
  49--Republicans who say shutting down the government over Obamacare 
is a big MISTAKE.
  45--The number of times GOP have unsuccessfully tried to repeal or 
undermine Affordable Care Act.
  18--The number of times Senate Republicans have blocked Senate 
Democrats' efforts to go to conference and negotiate on the budget to 
avoid a government shutdown.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats are and have been willing to negotiate over 
honest differences--but not before House Republican vote to open the 
government and remove the threat of government default.
  And there is an easy and verifiable way for them to demonstrate their 
good faith, and that is by bringing to the floor for an immediate vote 
on the clean CR already passed by the Senate.
  The President has stated repeatedly that he will sign a clean CR. Our 
constituents are waiting. It is time to end the madness.
  Mr. Speaker, let the House vote on H.J. Res. 59, as passed by the 
Senate today.
  That is the best way to keep faith with all persons who serve the 
American people as employees of the federal government, and those who 
depend upon the services they provide.

                               National Education Association,

                                  Washington, DC, October 8, 2013.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the three million members 
     of the National Education Association (NEA) and the students 
     they serve, we urge you to VOTE NO on The Deficit Reduction 
     and Economic Growth Working Group Act of 2013 (H.R. 3273), a 
     misguided strategy to ending this political stalemate, and 
     instead pass a clean Continuing Resolution (CR) immediately. 
     Votes associated with this issue may be included in the NEA 
     Legislative Report Card for the 113th Congress.
       The shutdown of the federal government has already affected 
     countless children, working families, and seniors across the 
     country; the longer this crisis drags on the more pain will 
     be inflicted upon those who least deserve it. Meanwhile, H.R. 
     3273 seeks to create a ``working group'' of Senators and 
     Representatives to discuss FY 2014 funding by attempting to 
     achieve deficit reduction without accompanying revenue 
     increases. Students in America's schools are bearing the 
     brunt of this shutdown every day and require solutions now.
       Instead of seeking deficit reduction on the backs of those 
     students and working families, Congress should take a 
     responsible, balanced approach that reflects the values that

[[Page 15451]]

     make our nation strong: investing in people, jobs, and 
     education as the path to prosperity. By eliminating wasteful 
     corporate tax breaks and loopholes and ensuring the wealthy 
     are paying their fair share we can appropriately reduce our 
     deficit. As just one example, as many as two out of three 
     U.S. corporations paid zero in federal income taxes over much 
     of the previous decade, according to the Government 
     Accountability Office (GAO). The share of federal revenues 
     coming from corporate taxes has shrunk by two-thirds in the 
     last 50 years. This is undermining our ability to make the 
     necessary investments in education that are sorely needed in 
     order to return our nation to prosperity. It is time to put 
     politics aside, do what is right for our nation, and take the 
     balanced approach to deficit reduction widely supported by 
     voters by calling on corporations and the very wealthy to pay 
     their fair share.
       Meanwhile, the current approach to deficit reduction 
     without revenue increases has left us with the 
     indiscriminate, across the board cuts of the sequester. It is 
     long past time for Congress to reverse course from the 
     austerity approach that included slashing education across-
     the-board by 5 percent this year--the equivalent of cutting 
     nearly all education programs and Head Start by roughly $3 
     billion. The level of cuts imposed by sequestration have 
     already taken federal funding back to pre-2004 levels while 
     our nation's schools are serving nearly 6 million more 
     students since that time.
       There are millions of children being affected every day 
     this shutdown continues. That is why we urge you to think of 
     every single individual when making these funding decisions 
     to ensure continued debates on Capitol Hill are not hurting 
     everyday Americans and their families. We urge you to 
     immediately pass a clean CR to ensure that the most 
     vulnerable among us are no longer the victims of the 
     government shutdown and we can focus back on undoing the 
     harmful effects of the sequester.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mary Kusler,
                                   Director, Government Relations.

  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Deficit Reduction and 
Economic Growth Work Group Act of 2013, I note that Sec 2(b) implicitly 
calls for reductions in direct spending programs, but does not 
authorize the working group to consider additional revenue.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 373, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit 
at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. I am opposed.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Brownley of California moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     3273 to the Committee on Rules with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting 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.

  Ms. BROWNLEY of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment 
to H.R. 3273. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final 
passage, as amended.
  My amendment is a simple, straightforward improvement that I believe 
both sides can agree is absolutely necessary, and it is also supported 
by the majority of the American people. If my amendment passes, it will 
end this reckless and irresponsible government shutdown.
  The majority claims that the bill before us right now will force the 
House and Senate to negotiate; but as written, this bill will do 
nothing of the sort. It will simply prolong the government shutdown. It 
will prolong the pain being done to our veterans, to the National Guard 
and Reserves, and to women, infants, and children; and, most 
importantly, this bill will prolong the pain being inflicted on our 
economy.
  Let's be clear, this bill is a bill to nowhere. In my view, there is 
no one in this room right now who thinks this bill will reopen the 
government.
  Since April, the Senate has tried 19 times to request a conference 
with the House; but each time, the request was blocked by Senate 
Republicans.
  After months of stalling and preventing a budget conference, I am 
amazed that my friends on the other side of the aisle want us to 
believe that they are ready to negotiate a budget. We have had months 
to produce a budget that the House and Senate could agree on.
  If my colleagues truly want to negotiate a budget that will move our 
country forward, they must vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
  Once we have reopened the government, we can then sit down and work 
out a budget for the long term. We can do this in a bipartisan manner, 
without our economy sinking, without our constituents being hurt, and 
we can do it in a manner that is becoming to this House.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Congress must get its fiscal 
house in order, and I believe both sides must come together to find 
solutions that better reflect the values of the American people; but 
instead of ending the shutdown, we continue to consider bills that play 
games.
  We cannot open the entire Federal Government one bill at a time. If 
we continue down this path, the government will remain closed for the 
next 3 months.
  How much damage would that do to the economy?
  How many veterans would go without their benefits?
  How many kids would lose Head Start funding?
  How many families would go without nutritional assistance?
  We cannot continue to play these games for 3 more months. The 
American people and the residents of my great county, Ventura County, 
deserve better.
  We can end this insanity right now. Reopen the government. Spare the 
American people the effects of this shutdown, and then come together to 
resolve our differences.
  To put bills on the floor that pretend to take care of our Nation's 
critical needs, when they do not, is shameful.
  I came to Congress to move our country forward, to help the families, 
the veterans, the small and large employers in Ventura County, to 
create jobs, and to invest in our future. We need to end this shutdown 
today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that the amendment 
contained in the motion violates clause 7 of rule XVI, commonly 
referred to as the germaneness rule.
  The objective of the bill under consideration is to establish a 
working group on deficit reduction. The amendment proposes to consider 
a Senate amendment to a House bill; therefore, the amendment fails the 
fundamental purpose test of germaneness described on page 547 of House 
Practice:
  If the purpose or objective of an amendment is unrelated to that of 
the bill to which it is offered, the amendment may be held not germane.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed in the motion is not 
germane to the bill, and I respectfully request a ruling from the 
Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I request to be heard on the 
point of order.

[[Page 15452]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized on the point of order.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, doesn't the bill before us 
set up a commission to examine deficit reduction?
  My motion to recommit would open up the entire Federal Government so 
that our taxpayers can receive the benefits they have already paid for. 
The recommit deals with government expenditures, and right now we are 
running a deficit. So isn't the amount the government is spending a 
relevant topic to deficit reduction?
  Can the Chair explain why it's not germane to open up the entire 
Federal Government while we discuss deficit reduction?
  Mr. Speaker, if you rule this motion out of order, does that mean we 
will not have a chance to keep the entire Federal Government open 
today? Can the Chair please explain why we can't keep the entire 
Federal Government open today?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Texas makes a point of order that the instructions 
proposed in the motion to recommit offered by the gentlewoman from 
California are not germane.
  As recorded in section 932 of the House Rules and Manual, a general 
principle of germaneness is that an amendment must relate to the 
subject matter under consideration.
  The instant bill proposes to establish a working group composed of 
Members and Senators. As such, it proposes a bicameral order in the 
form of a joint rule.
  In contrast, the instructions in the motion to recommit provide for 
the disposition of an extant legislative measure. As such, it proposes 
a special order of business of the House.
  By addressing a different exercise in rulemaking than the pending 
bill, the instructions propose a non-germane amendment. The point of 
order is sustained.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. 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. SESSIONS. 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.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. 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 the motion to table will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of the bill, if arising without further 
proceedings in recommittal; passage of House Joint Resolution 89; and 
the question on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 194, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 533]

                               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
     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
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--194

     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
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     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--10

     Clay
     Gallego
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Lucas
     McCarthy (NY)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rush
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1933

  Ms. JACKSON LEE, Messrs. KEATING, CONYERS, Mrs. CAPPS, Messrs. COHEN 
and RYAN of Ohio changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 15453]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 197, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 534]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     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
     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
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--197

     Andrews
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     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
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     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
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rooney
     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--10

     Clay
     Gallego
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Lucas
     McCarthy (NY)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rush
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1940

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

                          ____________________