[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7910-7921]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2216, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND 
 VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014; AND 
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2217, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                   SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 243 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 243

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2216) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the 
     committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a 
     recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 2217) making appropriations for the Department of 
     Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2014, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived except for section 563. During consideration of the 
     bill for amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole 
     may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether 
     the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed 
     in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for 
     that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Pending the adoption of a concurrent resolution on 
     the budget for fiscal year 2014, the provisions of House 
     Concurrent Resolution 25, as adopted by the House, shall have 
     force and effect in the House as though Congress has adopted 
     such concurrent resolution, and the allocations of spending 
     authority printed in Tables 11 and 12 of House Report 113-17 
     shall be considered for all purposes in the House to be the 
     allocations under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974.

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

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, 
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
rule and the two underlying bills.
  House Resolution 243 provides for an open rule for consideration of 
H.R. 2216,

[[Page 7911]]

the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act of 2014, and H.R. 2217, the Department of Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act of 2014.
  This rule provides ample opportunities for Members from both the 
minority and majority to participate in the debate, and it does not 
limit the number of amendments that may be considered, so long as the 
amendments comply with the rules of the House.
  My colleagues from both sides of the aisle agree that these 
appropriation acts for fiscal year 2014 are the products of an open, 
collaborative, and bipartisan process.
  They provide critical funding for military construction, housing, 
schools, and medical facilities for our servicemembers and their 
families, important veteran programs, the protection and security of 
our airports, seaports and national border, and disaster relief 
efforts. They also reduce duplication, improve oversight, encourage 
efficiency, and increase coordination of services.
  Mr. Speaker, these bills address nonpartisan issues that affect every 
one of us. The seamless operation of these agencies and programs and 
projects will benefit all Americans.
  Let me first address H.R. 2216, the Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2014.
  This fiscally sound bill funds programs that are necessary to keep 
our promises to our veterans and to train, equip, house, and support 
the brave men and women in uniform, as well as their families.
  This bill provides over $73 billion in discretionary funding, which 
is $1.4 billion above the enacted fiscal year 2013 level. It continues 
to provide advanced funding that was approved in fiscal year 2013 for 
veteran medical care and funds programs to reduce the staggering 
backlog which severely delayed the process of veteran benefits claims. 
This advance funding will ensure that our veterans have full access to 
medical care regardless of where we stand in the annual appropriation 
process.
  H.R. 2216 funds military construction projects, including family 
housing, military medical facilities, and Department of Defense 
education facilities. It also funds critical VA medical services and 
provides for a unified electronic health record system to integrate 
Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs health records.
  Currently, our veterans must physically present a hard copy of their 
DOD health records at their VA appointments, and physicians are unable 
to look up the patient's medical history if a patient does not have 
their records with them. This bill addresses this frustrating and 
inefficient process and will begin to replace an archaic paper record 
system with an electronic system that will ensure our veterans will be 
efficiently served and receive the care they need and deserve.
  Next, I'd like to talk about and highlight a few of the important 
provisions in H.R. 2217, the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act of 2014. This bill is essential to protect the 
security of our national borders and the safety and well-being of all 
Americans.
  This bill provides $38 billion in discretionary funding for the 
Department of Homeland Security, which includes funding for 21,370 
Border Patrol agents and nearly 22,800 Customs and Border Protection 
officers--the largest totals in history. It also directs U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement to train agents to identify and 
assist victims of human trafficking and directs ICE to increase 
spending on human trafficking and smuggling investigations.
  H.R. 2217 also provides funding for FEMA to ensure our Nation is 
prepared to provide disaster relief and funds the Coast Guard.
  Finally, I'd like to reiterate that these bills strengthen our 
national security and continue the well-being of our brave 
servicemembers, their families, and other veterans. They also recognize 
that our growing debt threatens the stability and safety of our Nation, 
and for this reason these bills make recommendations to reduce 
bureaucratic inefficiencies, duplication, and overhead.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. The Appropriations Committee has worked hard to 
provide us with two fiscally responsible appropriation bills that will 
meet the housing construction and medical needs of our military and 
provide support to their families. They will keep our promises to 
America's veterans, and they will enhance our national security.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I'd also like to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida, the former Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, 
who clearly championed there and here, likewise, regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2216 and 
H.R. 2217, as outlined by my colleague from the other side, two 
appropriations measures that fund military construction and family 
housing projects, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department 
of Homeland Security.
  Once again, my friends on the other side are using this particular 
rule as yet another attempt to deem and pass the controversial budget 
offered by our colleague Paul Ryan.
  This is exactly what they did in April of last year when they reneged 
on their promises in the Budget Control Act and also during 
consideration of H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science 
Appropriations for fiscal year 2013.
  My Republican colleagues have been calling for regular order; 
however, both the House and the Senate each passed a budget this year 
and regular order would have them go to conference to negotiate a 
budget for the 113th Congress. But instead of appointing conferees, the 
Speaker of the House and the House Republican leadership are deeming 
the Ryan budget passed.

                              {time}  1310

  Someone in a graphic that I saw said they're deeming the impossible 
deem.
  I, as one exemplar, should know, having served on the Rules Committee 
in the majority when we were going forward. We did consider deem and 
pass, and we learned along the way that that was going to skew the 
process. Therefore, we retreated from that, and I would urge my 
friends, the Republicans, to do likewise.
  They would rather see, it appears, greater military spending, at the 
expense of vital programs that millions of Americans rely on, than work 
with Democrats to replace the sequester and properly fund our Nation's 
government.
  Now, I'm not going through the litany of all the things that the 
sequester has cut and the problems that it has caused. Most people know 
that. But the Meals on Wheels program has been the one put forward, and 
I just think it is plain dumb and crazy to not take care of older 
people in our society. Never mind all the ideology, all the deficit, 
all the other hawk talk, who cares when someone that is a grandmother 
goes to sleep hungry because we didn't do what we should have done and 
that we passed a foolish sequester that has caused these problems.
  As a result, we're working with different budget target levels. In 
the House, it is $0.966 trillion and approximately $1.07 trillion for 
the Senate, which both sides agreed upon in the Budget Control Act of 
2011.
  These differences are important. The reductions imposed by the House 
302(b) allocations mean greater cuts for agencies and programs that 
already face difficult budget decisions due to sequestration. The two 
funding bills coming before us for consideration this week, along with 
those for defense and the legislative branch, are the only ones 
expected to receive an increase over the 2013 post-sequester levels. 
This means that we'll be forced to sacrifice health care, environment, 
education, transportation, and other important spending priorities in 
order to meet the new overall reductions required by the sequester.

[[Page 7912]]

  Furthermore, the appropriation for Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs is the only budget with a 302(b) allocation that is higher than 
pre-sequestration funding levels, whereas funding for Homeland 
Security, in my opinion, is unacceptably low in some areas, and the 
bill is encumbered by very, very troublesome riders, and I would urge 
the Members of the House to look carefully at those riders.
  Consequently, the 302(b) allocation would provide a 22 percent 
reduction to the pre-sequestration budget for health care, education, 
and labor programs. In my opinion, that's just plain outrageous.
  Republicans are again asking--I'm fond of saying in the Rules 
Committee that when I was 11 and 12 years old, my favorite radio 
program that my grandmother would let me listen to on Saturdays was a 
program called ``Let's Pretend.'' Little did I know 65 years later that 
I would be in an august body that is also in and of itself sitting 
around with people pretending that things are happening that are not 
happening.
  Republicans are asking us to pretend that the Ryan budget is law, 
when in fact it is not. This unilateral action is a formula for 
conflict, and I predict for you that that's what we'll have. While I 
appreciate the spirit of bipartisanship, and those gentlemen who came 
yesterday, Mr. Price and Mr. Bishop, the ranking members, and Judge 
Carter and his counterpart did an exceptional job, as did John 
Culberson, in showing this body that there can be bipartisan efforts. 
They did so, and I would hope that would serve for the rest of 
appropriations and for this body to take notice that people can work 
together when they try. And that bipartisanship led to the funding 
levels contained in both of these bills that we are considering under 
this rule. It is regrettable that it was not extended to the entire 
process.
  Simply put, the framework within which we are considering these 
bills--the Ryan budget that House Republicans have deemed as passed--is 
a nonstarter.
  Administration folks said yesterday that unless this bill passes the 
Congress in the context of an overall budget framework that supports 
our recovery and enables sufficient investments in education, 
infrastructure--and a footnote right there: Do we need to be reminded 
about the bridge that fell in the State of Washington, about the number 
of bridges in this Nation that are in disrepair and have been in 
disrepair? When Bill Clinton became President, he advocated that there 
were 14,000 bridges in need of repair, and he asked for a little bit of 
money that we should have allocated then. Now we have thousands of 
bridges in disrepair, and we are going about a process like this 
ignoring them.
  Where do we get the innovation at NIH for the health needs that are 
coming and the technological needs that are coming? How do we protect 
national security for our economy to be able to compete in the future?
  The President's senior advisers indicated that they would recommend 
to the President that he veto H.R. 2216 and H.R. 2217, and any other 
legislation that implements the House deemed budget framework. As I've 
said time and again, this is no way to run a budget process, and no way 
to conduct the business of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind everyone 
that we're talking about a rule here. And this rule, different from 
those that were proposed in the Congresses before I got here, in the 
111th Congress, is an open rule. It allows for amendments. If there are 
those who do not like what's in these bills, they can do everything 
that they need to do in an amendment and get 218 votes and pass it, and 
it'll change. If this bill needs perfecting, either one of these bills 
need perfecting, they can be perfected.
  I believe that is as close to regular order as we can get. If we can 
come down to this floor, offer an amendment, get an opportunity to 
debate that amendment, have our say, hopefully get the votes to pass 
it, change the bill, that's the way this process should work.
  This rule provides for that. It provides for two very well-thought-
out appropriation bills, which may have flaws. But if there are flaws, 
whether you're a Republican or Democrat, come on down. Once we pass 
this rule, we'll be taking those bills up one at a time. And any 
amendment, as long as it's within the germaneness rules of this House, 
can be offered. We would welcome that. I think both sides would welcome 
that.
  That's why when both of these bills came out of committee, there were 
glowing reports, both from the minority report and from the majority 
report. They are well-thought-out bills. They are well-done bills. They 
are bipartisan. They're done in an open and collaborative way, in an 
open, real, and regular order process. So for those reasons, I think 
this is a great rule because it sets forward the opportunity of people 
on this floor, no matter who they are, from a freshman to a senior 
Member, from Republican to Democrat, from moderate, liberal, and 
conservative, no matter who they are, to offer amendments to these 
bills, both of them. And if they get a majority vote, they can pass 
them. So I think that to me is an open process. That's also regular 
order.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my colleague began by saying 
that's as close to regular order as we can get. I would tell him, 
close, but no cigar.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my very good 
friend from New York, Mrs. Lowey, who has been on the Appropriations 
Committee at times when we didn't deem things and we did, in fact, pass 
appropriations measures.

                              {time}  1320

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, 
which would deem the discretionary spending levels in the Ryan budget 
as law.
  The Ryan budget endorses sequestration, is unrealistic, unworkable, 
economically misguided. The Senate and the White House are using a 
different set of numbers.
  By adopting the rule and the Ryan budget and breaking caps in the 
Budget Control Act which passed this body, we guarantee gridlock. The 
House majority will pass a small number of bills at roughly the 
President's requested levels, but will be unable to get bipartisan 
support for the remaining bills.
  It would also jeopardize our economic recovery. Europeans are 
experiencing the limits of austerity in the midst of a fragile 
recovery. We should invest more in education, biomedical research, 
transportation infrastructure, clean energy and other initiatives that 
grow our economy and create jobs. Instead, the deeming resolution would 
take a step back, all but ensuring significant reductions.
  To turn off the sequester, ensure the House's relevance in the 
process, and pass reasonable bills, Democrats offered in committee a 
motion to postpone consideration of subcommittee allocations until a 
budget resolution could be conferenced.
  And I do want to say this, and I would like to say this to my friend, 
the distinguished Chair on the other side of the House, there has been 
a call for a budget resolution on the Senate. They did a budget 
resolution on the Senate that has been requested by my good friends on 
the other side of the aisle. That budget resolution passed.
  However, I know the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, 
Chris Van Hollen, has called for a conference, went to the Rules 
Committee five times and said, Let's have a conference so we can move 
forward. That was denied.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mrs. LOWEY. So, my colleagues, with a balanced deficit reduction 
plan, we could establish an alternative allocation that would 
sufficiently fund our priorities and allow us to follow regular order 
for the appropriations process.
  Instead of my friends engaging today in a futile process--it's just a 
futile exercise--the House should abide by the

[[Page 7913]]

discretionary caps in the Budget Control Act. Turn off the sequester 
before we consider spending bills.
  My friends, vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mrs. Lowey, just before you leave, you have 
just an additional few seconds. Will the gentlelady yield to me?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I just want to say, in addition to the fact 
that Chris Van Hollen came to the Rules Committee five times, Harry 
Reid has offered eight times to go to conference and Republicans have 
blocked it. And I just want that to be understood, because later on 
we're going to hear somebody stand up here and say it's Democrats that 
are holding it up, and it's not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I just want to make a point to my friend on the other 
side of the aisle: the bill before us today is a bipartisan bill. There 
was strong support on both sides of the aisle. The chair and the 
ranking member worked together in a collegial way because this bill is 
so important for our country.
  The problem here is, after this bill and Homeland Security, there's 
nothing left. Education, National Institutes of Health are in a bill 
that's going to be cut 22 percent.
  So, my friend, the issue is not these bills today; it's the process 
and the fact there isn't a complete plan in place.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I've been in this process a long time, not necessarily here, but in 
other venues, and what I have found is what's before you is before you, 
and what comes later may or may not come later.
  But I would say this to the gentlelady, that what we have here are 
two bills that are bipartisan bills, and they have a great deal of 
input from both sides. They came out of committee with a strong vote, 
with both Republicans and Democrats.
  And so my thought is: here we are. We're here. We're addressing this 
particular issue. Now, when these other bills come to the floor of the 
House, before they get here they're going to pass through the Rules 
Committee, too, these appropriation bills. I will do everything I can 
to make them open, also, so that anybody that wants to amend them or 
perfect them has the opportunity.
  I believe in an open process. I believe that Members, no matter how 
long it takes, should have the opportunity to say their piece. And no 
matter what your philosophy is, no matter what your party is, no matter 
what your position is, no matter what your rank is, if you're 435th it 
doesn't really matter, you should have an opportunity to present your 
case.
  And so, these are these two bills. We have talked about the fact that 
we're going to have an open process here, and people want to perfect 
these bills; then great, offer an amendment. When the other 
appropriation bills come, that'll be the time to talk about them. But 
when they do, just know this: I'm going to be one that is going to be 
pressing hard to have open rules for them, also.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm very pleased 
to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), my very good friend, the minority whip of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, what's before us is before us. What's before us is a 
rule, not the MilCon bill, not Homeland Security.
  What's before us is the bill. And what does the bill do?
  It doesn't have an open process. It doesn't allow us an amendment. 
Mr. Van Hollen wanted to have an amendment and say let's go to 
conference on the budget; let's decide what these numbers ought to be. 
No, it's our way or the highway.
  You've passed a budget. You're going to stick with those numbers. 
They won't work. You know they won't work. That's why you don't go to 
conference, because Mr. Ryan knows he couldn't make a deal that he 
could bring back to this House and your side would vote for, I tell my 
friend on the Rules Committee.
  So what's before us is before us, a ratification of sequester, which 
starts with ``S,'' which stands for ``stupid.'' It is a terrible 
process. It is an irrational, commonsense-defying process.
  And yet my Republican friends continue to demand that we mark to 
figures that were contrary to the understanding, agreement--deal, if 
you want--that we made.
  In August of 2011, we made a deal and we said these are going to be 
the numbers, and the ink was not dry on the paper until such time as 
you violated that agreement. And the Ryan budget violates it once again 
and is $91 billion, almost 9 percent, less than the deal we made.
  What's before us is before us, the gentleman says. What's before us 
is the rule to ratify the sequester.
  Now, your side blames the President for it. The President doesn't 
want the sequester. We don't want the sequester. Mr. Van Hollen, who's 
sitting here, doesn't want the sequester, and he's tried to offer 
amendments to obviate the sequester and hasn't been allowed to have 
those amendments on the floor, I tell my friend on the Rules Committee.
  And I congratulate him for his position, but he ought to allow the 
Van Hollen amendment so the House can, in fact, work its will, so that 
we can, in fact, have a process that will work.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Now, my friend says he's been here for some time and he's 
participated in another legislative body. Well, I've been here for a 
long time myself, as the gentleman knows, some 33 years, and 12 years 
in the Maryland Senate, President of the Senate for the last 4 I was 
there. So I've been around for some years myself.
  The fact is, I will tell the gentleman, there is no possibility 
you're going to consider all 12 bills because, as the gentlelady said, 
you're going to run out of money. Why? Because you're front-loading 
that which you like, and that which you're not too happy about is going 
to be not only breaking the agreement we made, but far below your own 
budget numbers because you didn't want to mark to your 966 with this 
bill.

                              {time}  1330

  Why? Because you want to make sure the veterans were taken care of. 
God bless you. I agree with that. But there's only X number of dollars 
in that pot, and somebody's going to lose.
  What the President is saying is let's consider them all together. 
That's what we ought to be doing. Reject this bill, reject this 
sequester, reject this deeming resolution, and let us have a rule that 
makes common sense for our country.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I will reiterate the fact that it is what is before us. We 
cannot get to these two bipartisan, well-thought-out, well-debated, 
well-collaborated pieces of legislation which deal with some issues 
that are very, very important without passing a rule to allow us to do 
that. That's what this rule does. It deals with those two bills. No, 
those two bills aren't before us, but this rule is the gateway to get 
to those bills. How are we going to get there? We're going to pass this 
rule. Once we get there, what are we going to do? We're going to have 
an open process--one that has been foreign until the Republicans took 
control of this legislature--foreign, no matter what your standing in 
this body was.
  There were closed bills after closed bills after closed bills after 
closed bills that came up. Was there an opportunity to amend it, to 
perfect it, to do anything with it? Absolutely not. But that's not the 
way it is now. If we pass this rule, we're going to get to a process 
that allows every Member to come down to this floor and offer an 
amendment, debate that amendment, and

[[Page 7914]]

have the possibility of passing that amendment.
  So, yes, there are other issues, there are other appropriations, 
there are other bills that will be coming to this floor at some point 
in time. And at that time we can debate them. But right now, this is 
the issue before us. These two very important bills--and very much 
agreed-on bills--are only going to be taken up on this floor if this 
rule passes.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. May I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) 
has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased and privileged at this time to yield 3 
minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which aims to 
approve the House majority's inadequate appropriations allocation level 
for 2014, a level that is over $90 billion below that of the Senate and 
the President and violates the agreement that we all voted on a year 
ago, Democrats and Republicans, in the Budget Control Act to increase 
that funding above the number that they present to us today.
  The budget reflects our values, reflects our priorities, and our 
responsibilities to the people that we represent. It is our job to make 
sure that that is the case. And yet for the third time in 3 years, this 
House majority has put forward a reckless and ideological funding level 
that ensures that our government cannot even meet its most basic 
responsibilities to the American people.
  Under this House majority's plan, we will see cuts that are deeper 
than the indiscriminate across-the-board cuts. The funding for the 
Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services is drastically cut. And 
this rule accepts those cuts made to the program this year and then it 
multiplies that by four in 2014. What are those cuts? Where do they 
fall? And if enacted, the wrong choices will cause incalculable damage. 
They severely weaken these critical programs that protect public health 
and safety, that promote and develop our workforce, training programs, 
education, Pell Grants, Meals on Wheels, special education, and 
biomedical research so that people can live. It affects our seniors, 
our veterans, our middle class, and our most vulnerable families.
  I, along with Congressman Van Hollen and others, have offered 
legislation that cuts $30 billion from the Federal deficit and replaces 
the deep and indiscriminate cuts for the next 2 years with a more 
balanced and a targeted approach. That's the direction we should be 
moving in--keeping up with our fundamental responsibilities to the 
families who have elected us to stand up for them.
  Rather than going down this path, the House majority should appoint 
budget conferees and do its job and negotiate with the Senate. Our 
appropriations chairman claims to want to undo sequestration. Yet 
rather than showing leadership, the House majority fails to address the 
sequester and create conditions for another budget crisis down the 
road.
  We hear so much talk from this majority about regular order. What 
does that mean? The House passes a bill, the Senate passes bill, they 
work out their differences, they get it to the President, and the 
President signs the bill. Well, Mr. Speaker, where is the regular 
order? It is autocracy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. No more games. I urge all of my colleagues to vote 
against this disastrous funding level. Let's work together to fix the 
sequester and get us back on the path to economic growth. This is our 
top priority. It must be our top priority. And this House of 
Representatives needs to show the American people that it can lead.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to reiterate again the benefits of these two bills that we're 
going to be debating if we pass this rule. They provide critical 
funding for military construction, housing, schools, and medical 
facilities for our servicemembers and their families, as well as 
important veterans programs. They protect security for our airports, 
seaports, and national border, as well as disaster relief efforts. They 
also reduce duplication, improve oversight, encourage efficiency, and 
increase coordination of services.
  If there were one provision in a bill that would push you over the 
edge of voting for or against something, it would be the idea of 
getting rid of this old paperwork. I've had someone come and tell me 
that they had gotten a tetanus shot, I think, about 3 weeks before they 
got out of the service. Once they got out, they went to the VA and they 
forgot to take the record with them. So they had no proof. They went to 
the VA and they said, You're going to have to get a tetanus shot. He 
says, Wait a minute, I've already gotten one. You don't have that 
record? No. And if you don't have it with you, we don't know. Because 
you can tell us you had one 3 months ago, but that doesn't matter.
  We need to do it. This one bill gets rid of that process and says 
we're going to move towards a modern system of electronically 
transferring these records. There's so many good things in these two 
bills; it's just pretext for the fact that this rule needs to be 
approved.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. If we defeat the previous question, we'll 
offer an amendment to the rule that strikes the provision of the rule 
that deems the passage of the Ryan budget and will allow the House to 
consider the resolution calling on Speaker Boehner to proceed to 
conference on the budget.
  It is time for the majority to follow regular House procedure by 
immediately requesting a conference and appointing conferees to 
negotiate a fiscal 2014 budget resolution conference agreement with the 
Senate.
  To discuss our proposal, I'm very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my 
good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my friend, Mr. Hastings.
  I've been listening to Mr. Webster. And if I were Mr. Webster, I'd be 
doing exactly what he's doing, which is focusing on the underlying 
bills: the spending bill to support our veterans, to support military 
construction, and homeland security.

                              {time}  1340

  But as others have pointed out, the vote before us is not on those 
underlying bills. It's on the rule. And everybody needs to understand 
that what's at play here is a scheme to use the rules to affect not 
just the veterans budget, but to affect other parts of our budget.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, I find it especially cynical that our 
colleagues would use the spending bills on veterans and military 
construction as the vehicle to pass their budget levels which will 
result in dramatic cuts to the parts of the budget that fund our kids' 
education and that fund the investments in science and research to find 
cures and treatments to things like cancer, because we know the 
Appropriations Committee has already set out what the levels for those 
categories to the budget will be. And do you know what they are? A $30 
billion cut below the sequester level to the parts of the budget that 
fund our kids' education and that fund that scientific research.
  So, yes, this is the rule for two particular bills. They are good 
bills. The veterans bill is a good bill. But the rule, ladies and 
gentlemen, has embedded in it the Republican budget levels for the 
overall budget process. And that's going to hurt education for the kids 
of those veterans and the family members of those veterans who have 
diseases whose funding for research is going to be dramatically cut. A 
20 percent cut below the sequester level, that's what you're adopting 
in this

[[Page 7915]]

rule, a 20 percent cut for the category of the budget on education.
  Now, why are we here? We're supposed to have a budget process. The 
House passed a budget. I don't like the budget, but it passed a budget. 
The Senate passed a budget. Under the rules of the Congress, in fact, 
as a matter of law, the House and Senate are supposed to have completed 
a conference committee by April 15. That was quite a while ago. In 
fact, it's been over 70 days since the Senate passed a budget and the 
House passed a budget.
  Now, we don't have a House-Senate conference committee report. Why 
might that be? Well, it turns out that the Speaker of the House has 
refused to appoint conferrees to work with the Senate to come up with a 
budget. Now, our Republican colleagues beat up for years on the Senate 
for not having a budget. I can understand that complaint. But the 
Senate has a budget now, and yet our Republican colleagues refuse to go 
to conference.
  You made a big deal about ``no budget, no pay.'' Guess what? We don't 
have a budget. We have a House budget and we have a Senate budget, but 
we don't have a Federal budget, and yet everybody is getting paid. What 
happened to that?
  Now, why would we not want to go to conference? Mr. Speaker, just 
today in the United States Senate, Patty Murray, the chairwoman for the 
Budget Committee, for the 11th time tried to get consent to go to 
conference to work these differences out in a transparent way, blocked 
by a Republican Senator.
  Here is what Senator McCain has had to say about the whole process, 
because I would urge our colleagues to listen to him. This is a quote 
from Senator McCain:

       I think it's insane for Republicans who complained for 4 
     years about Harry Reid not having a budget and now we're not 
     going to agree to conference? That is beyond comprehension 
     for me.

  And I think it's beyond comprehension for the American people. Why 
are you sitting on the budget?
  So what are we doing in this rule? This rule says let's pretend. 
Let's make believe that the House and Senate went to conference, and 
let's pretend that they agree, except let's pretend that they agreed on 
the House budget numbers, the numbers that would cut the part of the 
budget that deals with our kids' education by over 20 percent. Let's 
pretend that because we don't want to go through the normal process. 
That's what this rule does. It's a total fake. And it's a fake because 
of the refusal to work these issues out in a transparent manner for the 
American people.
  So, the previous question is a very simple statement. It just says 
let's comply with the law which says a conference committee was 
supposed to have met and completed action by April 15; let's at least 
start down the process of complying with the law. It says that it is 
the sense of the House of Representatives that the Speaker should 
follow regular House procedure and immediately request a conference and 
appoint conferees to negotiate a fiscal year 2014 budget resolution so 
we can have a real Federal budget, not a fake budget, which is what 
you're calling for in this rule under the guise of saying let's just 
fund our veterans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I find it especially cynical 
that we would use a good bill to provide spending and support to our 
veterans as the vehicle to impose this scheme on the Congress which 
will have terrible, negative effects on other parts of the budget.
  Do you know that while this Congress was away, I don't know if people 
saw it, but down in Fort Bragg, the home of the 82nd Airborne, they 
just said that teachers who were going to teach the kids of our 
servicemen and -women are going to be furloughed for 5 days this fall--
for 5 days this fall. So we want to replace the sequester. Let's go to 
conference and get it done.
  I urge my colleagues who said they want a transparent process to vote 
for our measure.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes of my time to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Florida for yielding me the time.
  I hadn't anticipated coming down here today, Mr. Speaker. I came down 
to listen, but I hadn't anticipated coming down to speak. And I will 
say to my friend from Maryland his words struck me, because twice in 
his presentation he said, you know, I think it's especially cynical 
that we're using this process to bring forward two bills that in a 
bipartisan way we agree on.
  I would say to my friend with a heavy heart, Mr. Speaker, that I 
think it's especially cynical, since we both know these bills need to 
be passed, to describe what is happening here in any terms other than 
that which is exactly necessary in order to get these bills passed.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. Let me get this off my chest, and I'd be happy to yield 
to my friend. I would be happy to yield when I'm done, because I have a 
copy of the rule here.
  And the gentleman was in the Rules Committee last night, and the 
gentleman knows this is what section 3 provides, that pending the 
adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget, we're going to move 
forward, pending the adoption.
  Now, my friend knows, Mr. Speaker, how hard it is to find that 
agreement. And the reason my friend knows is because I voted for the 
Budget Control Act in August of 2011, which put my friend and five 
other Members of the House, it was six House Members, six Senate 
Members, six Republicans, six Democrats, it put them in a room together 
for August, September, October, and November with the entire Federal 
budget over the next 100 years in front of them, allowing them to 
choose anything they wanted to to agree on to let us move forward as a 
nation.
  Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Collectively they agreed on not one 
dollar. I don't fault my friend for that. I know my friend was working 
as hard as my friend could possibly work to find agreement. But finding 
agreement is hard. What we're talking about finding agreement with, Mr. 
Speaker, this comes from The Washington Post editorial page. It's 
entitled, ``The Democrats' complacent budget plan.'' It says:

       Partisan in tone and complacent in substance, the budget 
     scores points against the Republicans and reassures the 
     party's liberal base but deepens these Senators' commitment 
     to an unsustainable policy agenda.

  This is what it is that we're trying to find agreement on. Now, my 
friend from Maryland knows, in fact, he may have even brought it to my 
attention yesterday, a letter directing the chairman of the Rules 
Committee, on which I sit, Mr. Speaker, from the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, also on which I sit, that's signed by Chairman Paul Ryan. It 
says this, over Paul Ryan's signature:

       I want to emphasize that this is a request for an interim 
     measure while the Committee on the Budget continues to work 
     towards an agreement with the Senate on a budget resolution 
     for the coming fiscal year.

  And I would, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend 
from Maryland, does he doubt the chairman's word when the chairman says 
this is an interim solution until we find agreement?
  I'd be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. My colleague, what I know are the facts, which is 
just today, as I said on the floor, the chairwoman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, for the 11th time, said to Mr. Ryan, Let's go to conference 
so we can work out these differences in a public way. And she was 
blocked over here just like we've been blocked over here.
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman knows that Chairman 
Ryan has no control over the inside workings of the United States 
Senate, and Chairman Ryan did not block what was going on in the United 
States Senate. The United States Senators were blocking it.
  I would ask the gentleman again: Does the gentleman doubt the 
chairman's word? I understand that the gentleman is frustrated about 
process, and

[[Page 7916]]

goodness knows, as someone who supports open rules, I'm frustrated with 
process, too. We have that in common. But notwithstanding that process, 
what I have here is a letter from a man which you and I both support--
and ``support,'' I mean we believe in his integrity. And he tells us 
that he is working towards a solution and that what we're doing here 
today is just an interim step to get these bills that we all agree are 
so very important, we all agree are so very important, the interim step 
to get these moving down the process.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would yield to ask the gentleman does he disagree with 
the commitment made by the chairman? And I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I'm not questioning the integrity of the chairman of 
the Budget Committee.
  This is not just about process. As I indicated, you adopt this rule 
and you're essentially applying a 20 percent cut below sequester to the 
part of the budget that deals with our kids' education and science and 
research. So this is way beyond process.

                              {time}  1350

  So this is way beyond process.
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I would say to the gentleman that's 
just not the case.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. That is the case. The gentleman should go read the 
Appropriations Committee 302(b) allocations.
  Mr. WOODALL. I'm aware of the Appropriations Committee 302(b) 
allocations. And what I'm aware of, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to 
have those allocations to begin the process. The gentleman is talking 
about where we are going to finish the process on October 1. I'm trying 
to get it started today. The gentleman knows that we can't get started.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Why are those levels at the levels they are? Would the gentleman 
answer that question?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I want to quote what one of my Democratic colleagues quoted last 
night in the Rules Committee, and that's Federalist Paper No. 58, 
written by James Madison for the Independent Journal back on February 
20, 1788. And he said this:

       This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the 
     most complete and effectual weapon with which any 
     constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the 
     people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for 
     carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

  Because that's the constitutional responsibility of this body, Mr. 
Speaker, to appropriate these dollars. This process of appropriations, 
this constitutional responsibility, cannot begin until we have some 
numbers against which to budget and appropriate.
  What my chairman on the Budget Committee has asked is that as an 
interim step, and an interim step only, we adopt these numbers today on 
bills about which we all agree. What is cynical, Mr. Speaker, is that 
these are things on which we all agree, and we're using this as a 
position to talk about other issues about which we disagree.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield, because we don't agree on 
cutting the kids' education budget?
  Mr. WOODALL. As my friend knows from his time having to negotiate on 
the joint select, what we'll call the supercommittee, my friends at The 
Washington Post go on to say:

       In short, this document--

  Talking about the budget passed by the Senate.

     --gives voters no reason to believe that Democrats have a 
     viable plan for--or even a responsible public assessment of--
     the country's long-term fiscal predicament.

  Now, I will say, Mr. Speaker, that gives me great concern about 
whether we will be able to reach agreement with the Senate. As my 
friend from Maryland knows, Mr. Speaker, the House budget reduces 
spending by trillions of dollars and the Senate budget increases 
spending even more. In many years, it spends more than even the 
President requested.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. As my friend from Maryland knows, we keep tax revenues 
the same and the Senate increases taxes by almost $1 trillion.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I just want to know why you're afraid to go to 
conference. Why is that? That's what this is about.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has 
again expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my very good friend from California, Ms. Barbara Lee.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Let me just say, first, as a member of both the Appropriations and 
the Budget Committees, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. The 
allocations provided under this rule will savage vital programs that 
protect the public health and safety, promote and develop our 
workforce, and educate the next generation of Americans.
  Sequester cuts are already hitting low-income families throughout our 
country and also in my congressional district in my home State of 
California. And every single household in America, especially the 
millions of Americans who are struggling still to find a job, these 
cuts are hitting them disproportionately.
  Our economy cannot afford these cuts. Hungry children do not deserve 
these cuts. Students who depend on Pell Grants, TRIO, and Head Start do 
not deserve these cuts. And certainly, our seniors and our veterans do 
not deserve these cuts.
  The Military Construction-Veterans bill on the floor this week 
assumes the sequester cuts have been replaced. Why in the world can't 
we do this for the other bills as well? We all know that the allocation 
for the rest of the subcommittees will make it nearly impossible to 
fund education, senior programs, infrastructure, and job creation. 
While all of us believe it is important to keep the government 
functioning, governing by a continuing resolution is really no way to 
run the Federal Government, and that is exactly what course we are on 
unless we come to some agreement.
  The majority claims that they care about the middle class and the 
poor, yet these cuts really do begin to erode the middle class and 
force more people into poverty. So it's time for Congress to reject 
these draconian cuts and replace the sequester with a bipartisan 
agreement on the budget resolution to create jobs and to lift the 
economy for all.
  Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. We need to vote ``no'' on the rule, 
and we need to go back to the drawing board.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, that last discussion was worth 
paying the price to come here. But I would like to say this, to bring 
it back to where we are, and that is:
  We have before us a rule. This rule is going to be the gateway--the 
gateway--to an open process. That open process, when it opens up, is 
beautiful to behold. We have two bills that will be heard. Both of 
those bills are going to be able to be amended by any Member that would 
like to do it. And to me, that is what I have searched for, and I think 
it's a great thing.
  We have the opportunity to come to this floor, agree or disagree, but 
in the end we will produce a product that was put together by a 
bipartisan group of members of two different committees of the 
Appropriations Committee. And it went through the regular process. 
Bringing it to the floor with an open rule is the regular process. That 
is why I'm supporting this rule, because the rule gives the gateway to 
us doing those bills.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague 
that I have no further speakers, and I'm prepared to close. So I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess I have to ask the question at the beginning that 
Mr.

[[Page 7917]]

Van Hollen has persisted in asking, and I as well and others: Why are 
you afraid to go to conference? I have no idea why you can't do that 
and follow the regular order.
  I agree with my colleague that this bipartisan measure is a very good 
thing that we are bringing here, but I also agree with other speakers 
that when we finish doing these two bills--and I predict for my friend 
that we will not reach a single other measure of appropriations for the 
reason that if you're going to cut 22 percent from everything else and 
you're going to hold harmless the things that you and I like, then be 
assured we are in serious trouble as the appropriations process moves 
forward.
  We have a responsibility to implement a budget framework that 
supports programs which help Americans provide for their families, to 
stay in their homes, and remain competitive in the global economy. The 
Ryan budget picks winners and losers, and we are picking two winners 
today, and we are going to have 11 losers on down the road.
  ``Deem and pass'' did not work the last Congress, it didn't work when 
Democrats thought that they could try it, and it ain't gonna work now. 
It is long past time that House Republicans work together with 
Democrats in conference, just as these two committees did, to negotiate 
a budget and put an end to the devastating sequester.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
rule, and I'm prepared to yield back the balance of my time after I ask 
the question one more time: Why are you afraid to go to conference?
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit two letters into the Record.
  The first letter is from the Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan. In 
his letter, Chairman Ryan asks the Rules Committee to follow standard 
practice by addressing budget enforcement pending a conference report 
on the budget resolution. To prevent greater uncertainty and further 
delays in the appropriations process, House Resolution 243 will include 
a provision and does include a provision that adopts the House-passed 
budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 25, as an interim budget enforcement 
measure until an agreement may be reached with the Senate on the budget 
resolution for the coming fiscal year.
  I would like to read an excerpt from that letter. This is from 
Chairman Ryan to Chairman Sessions, who is the Rules Committee 
chairman:

       As you know, the budget passed by the House reduces 
     spending by $4.6 trillion and achieves balance in 2023--all 
     without raising taxes on the American people. In contrast, 
     the budget resolution adopted by the Senate raises taxes by 
     over $900 billion, increases spending by $265 billion and 
     never balances. While I continue to work with my Senate 
     counterpart to find common ground, we have not yet been able 
     to reach agreement.

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Let me finish this first.
  Another part of that reads:

       Until such time as we are able to reach agreement and 
     consistent with the practice in previous years when the House 
     and Senate have been delayed in completing action on a budget 
     resolution, I am asking that the rule include a provision 
     that adopts the House-passed budget resolution as an interim 
     budget enforcement measure that will allow the appropriations 
     process to proceed without further delay.

  The second letter is just a response from Representative Sessions, 
who is the chair of the Rules Committee, acknowledging that the rule 
would include the requested interim budget enforcement measure.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I just have a simple question, which is: How is it 
that we are going to get agreement from the House and the Senate in a 
conference committee if the Speaker of the House continues to refuse to 
go to conference? How are we going to get that agreement?
  The reason we don't have a conference committee budget report and you 
have to use this device is that there is no conference, and the reason 
there is no conference is that our Republican colleagues in the House 
refuse to appoint conferees, which is why we want to pass this 
amendment and let the Members vote on whether or not we go to 
conference.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I reclaim my time and will not yield any more 
time after this.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am not involved in that process. However, 
I can tell you this: I was a speaker at one point in time in a 
different body and at a different time in my career. Even if a 
conference committee has not been formed, there are discussions that go 
on. Then, eventually, there will be a conference committee, and things 
work out, but it doesn't necessarily mean that nothing is happening. I 
think things are happening. I think they are working on solutions. We 
have to have a solution at some point in time, and that's happening.
  This resolution provides for an open rule to allow all Members to 
offer their ideas and to debate them through regular order. Two 
underlying bills fund necessary programs that train, equip, house, and 
support the brave men and women who sacrificially defend our freedoms, 
and the bills also support their families. Our debt of gratitude to 
these individuals does not expire when they retire, as the legislation 
also funds important programs to provide benefits and medical care for 
our veterans. Additionally, the legislation equips our Coast Guard and 
supports the individuals who guard our borders, secure our airports and 
seaports, and who respond to natural disasters.
  However, we would be doing a great disservice, Mr. Speaker, to future 
generations if we were to fail to consider the effect our current 
spending will have on the future fiscal health and safety our Nation. 
For that reason, these bills reduce costs, require the coordination of 
medical care and ensure the efficient operation of those critical 
programs so that we may continue to support those who protect us.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this rule 
and in the passage of the underlying bills.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                     Washington, DC, May 31, 2013.
     Hon. Pete Sessions,
     Chairman, Committee on Rules,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Yesterday you announced that the 
     Committee on Rules will meet on June 3 to report a rule to 
     govern the floor consideration of the first appropriations 
     bills for fiscal year 2014. I am writing to ask that you 
     include in that rule a provision providing for the 
     enforcement of the concurrent resolution on the budget as 
     passed by the House (H. Con. Res. 25) until such time as the 
     House adopts a conference report on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2014.
       As you know, the budget passed by the House reduces 
     spending by $4.6 trillion and achieves balance in 2023--all 
     without raising taxes on the American people. In contrast, 
     the budget resolution adopted by the Senate raises taxes by 
     over $900 billion, increases spending by $265 billion, and 
     never balances. While I continue to work with my Senate 
     counterpart to find common ground, we have not yet been able 
     to reach agreement.
       Until such time as we are able to reach agreement and 
     consistent with the practice in previous years when the House 
     and Senate have been delayed in completing action on a budget 
     resolution, I am asking that the rule include a provision 
     that adopts the House-passed budget resolution as an interim 
     budget enforcement measure that will allow the appropriations 
     process to proceed without further delay.
       Pursuant to the authority provided in the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 and in title VI of the House-passed 
     concurrent resolution on the budget and consistent with 
     longstanding practice, once the House passes the rule 
     adopting the House-passed budget resolution, as the Budget 
     Committee Chairman I intend to file the allocations and 
     adjustments in the Congressional Record to put in force such 
     concurrent resolution.
       To ensure the Rules Committee and House members have full 
     transparency on the budget levels that would be enforced, 
     enclosed are

[[Page 7918]]

     the relevant budget aggregates and committee allocations that 
     I will file if the House adopts the rule. The House-passed 
     budget resolution was based on CBO February budget 
     projections and estimates. The funding levels for global war 
     on terror (GWOT)/overseas contingency operations (OCO) and 
     for veterans programs were based on an extrapolation of the 
     President's budget request from last year. Because the House 
     acted on the budget resolution before CBO had completed its 
     updated budget projections and before the President had 
     submitted his fiscal year 2014 budget request, the resolution 
     provided authority for the Chairman to adjust the relevant 
     levels in the resolution to reflect CBO's updated budget 
     projections and the President's request for GWOT/OCO and 
     veterans advance appropriations. The adjustments for CBO's 
     updated baseline will be limited to changes due to updated 
     technical estimates. Now that we have CBO's revised baseline 
     projections and the President's budget request, it is 
     possible to update the levels in the House-passed budget 
     resolution to reflect this updated information. Enclosed are 
     tables showing aggregate budget and committee allocations 
     that will be used for budget enforcement purposes.
       I want to emphasize that this is a request for an interim 
     measure while the Committee on the Budget continues to work 
     toward an agreement with the Senate on a budget resolution 
     for the coming fiscal year. The nation's fiscal problems 
     cannot be addressed solely through the appropriations process 
     and the budget remains the critical vehicle for identifying a 
     solution.
       To ensure full transparency as to my intent should this 
     request be granted, I ask that you include this letter and 
     the enclosures in the Rules Committee's record of 
     consideration of the rule. I appreciate your consideration. 
     If there are any questions, please contact Paul Restuccia, 
     Chief Counsel of the Committee on the Budget.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Paul D. Ryan,
                                                         Chairman.
       Enclosures.

                            BUDGET AGGREGATES
               (On-budget amounts, in millions of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal year
                                   -------------------------------------
                                           2014            2014-2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Aggregates:                 .................  .................
    Budget Authority..............          2,755,317                \1\
    Outlays.......................          2,810,979                \1\
    Revenues......................          2,310,972        31,089,081
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Not applicable because annual appropriations acts for fiscal years
  2015-2023 will not be considered until future sessions of Congress.


  ALLOCATION OF SPENDING AUTHORITY TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                        (In millions of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID Base Discretionary Action:
    BA.....................................................      966,924
    OT.....................................................    1,117,675
Global War on Terrorism:
    BA.....................................................       92,289
    OT.....................................................       48,010
Total Discretionary Action:
    BA.....................................................    1,059,213
    OT.....................................................    1,165,685
Current Law Mandatory:
    BA.....................................................      749,400
    OT.....................................................      738,140
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   RESOLUTION BY AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE
               (On-budget amounts in millions of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               2014          2014-2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................          92,956         906,903
        OT..............................          89,341         900,800
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................          -2,631        -209,044
        4OT.............................          -2,501        -208,556
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................          86,840         692,244
                                         ===============================
Armed Services:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................         150,138       1,764,863
        OT..............................         149,922       1,768,772
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................               0               0
        OT..............................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            4BA.........................         150,138       1,764,863
            OT..........................         149,922       1,768,772
                                         ===============================
Financial Services:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................          12,981         114,942
        OT..............................           2,112         -57,397
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................         -11,465         -94,439
        OT..............................         -10,428         -94,325
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................           1,516          20,503
            OT..........................          -8,316        -151,722
                                         ===============================
Education & Workforce:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................         -25,740            -661
        OT..............................         -18,800           2,383
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................         -21,712        -217,458
        BA..............................          -7,430        -198,921
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................         -47,452        -218,119
            OT..........................         -26,230        -196,538
                                         ===============================
Energy & Commerce:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................         356,892       4,936,804
        BA..............................         356,892       4,936,804
        OT..............................         354,784       4,935,838
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................         -22,996      -1,604,166
        OT..............................         -20,659      -1,596,356
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................         333,896       3,332,638
            OT..........................         334,125       3,339,482
                                         ===============================
Foreign Affairs:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................          29,118         241,385
        OT..............................          26,085         235,012
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................               0               0
        OT..............................               0               0
        Total:
            BA..........................          29,118         241,385
            OT..........................          26,085         235,012
                                         ===============================
Oversight & Government Reform:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................         102,657       1,199,434
        OT..............................          99,645       1,170,525
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................         -11,758        -165,996
        OT..............................         -11,758        -165,996
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................          90,899       1,033,438
            OT..........................          87,887       1,004,529
                                         ===============================
Homeland Security:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................           1,916          22,255
        OT..............................           1,779          22,321
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................            -305         -12,575
        OT..............................            -305         -12,575
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................           1,611           9,680
            OT..........................           1,474           9,746
                                         ===============================
House Administration:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................              40             371
        OT..............................               6             206
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................             -34            -295
        OT..............................               0            -130
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................               6              76
            OT..........................               6              76
                                         ===============================
Natural Resources:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................           6,441          63,590
        OT..............................           7,069          66,964
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................            -900         -17,995
        OT..............................            -632         -17,225
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................           5,541          45,595
            OT..........................           6,437          49,739
                                         ===============================
Judiciary:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................          19,809         102,678
        OT..............................          11,573         105,537
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................         -11,506         -47,461
        OT..............................            -637         -45,809
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................           8,303          55,217
            OT..........................          10,936          59,728
                                         ===============================
Transportation & Infrastructure:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................          71,454         728,035
        OT..............................          16,822         193,098
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................             -78        -116,444
        OT..............................             -47            -951
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................          71,376         611,591
            OT..........................          16,775         192,147
                                         ===============================
Sdence, Space & Technology:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................             101           1,010
        OT..............................             104           1,013
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................               0               0
        OT..............................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................             101           1,010
            OT..........................             104           1,013
                                         ===============================
Small Business:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................               0               0
        OT..............................               0               0
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................               0               0
        OT..............................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................               0               0
            OT..........................               0               0
                                         ===============================
Veterans Affairs:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................           2,939          93,544
        OT..............................           3,098          95,206
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................               0               0
        OT..............................               0               0
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................           2,939          93,544
            OT..........................           3,098          95,206
                                         ===============================
Ways & Means:
    Current Law:
        BA..............................         963,421      14,458,848
        OT..............................         962,271      14,455,530
    Resolution Change:
        BA..............................         -22,567      -1,298,202
        OT..............................         -21,667      -1,291,946
                                         -------------------------------
        Total:
            BA..........................         940,854      13,160,646
            OT..........................         940,604      13,163,584
                                         ===============================
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations


  ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

            (Subject to a General Limit of $28,852,000,000)

       Payment to Postal Service

       Employment and Training Administration
       Education for the Disadvantaged
       School Improvement Programs
       Special Education
       Career, Technical and Adult Education

       Tenant-based Rental Assistance

[[Page 7919]]

       Project-based Rental Assistance


VETERANS ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2015

              (Subject to a Separate Limit of $55,634,227)

       VA Medical Services
       VA Medical Support and Compliance
       VA Medical Facilities
                                  ____

                                                Committee on Rules


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, June 3, 2013.
     Chairman Paul Ryan,
     Committee on the Budget, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Ryan: Thank you for your letter of May 31, 
     2013. I appreciate your desire and commitment to achieving a 
     final resolution of the Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 with the 
     Senate. Your leadership on the budget challenges facing the 
     Nation is unmatched.
       I agree with you that, pending a conference report on the 
     budget, it is both timely and proper to ensure that we have 
     the necessary budget enforcement mechanisms in place as we 
     begin the annual appropriations process. Despite the fact 
     that the President's Budget was submitted more than two 
     months after the statutory deadline, we must move forward on 
     the annual appropriations process if we have any hope of 
     meeting the deadlines imposed by the end of the fiscal year.
       To that end, I intend to recommend to the Committee on 
     Rules that we agree to your request for the inclusion of 
     budget enforcement language in the rule that will be 
     considered by the Committee later today. This will allow you 
     to continue your negotiations with the Senate and allow the 
     House to begin its work on the appropriations bills, which I 
     believe is a responsible approach.
       Thank you again for your leadership.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Pete Sessions.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule 
for H.R. 2216, Military Construction/VA Appropriations act for FY 2014.
  I oppose the rule because it adheres to the draconian spending limits 
imposed by the Ryan Budget resolution rather than more realistic and 
responsible limits to be negotiated and agreed to by House and Senate 
budget conferees.
  Indeed, the Republican House leadership has refused for months to 
appoint conferees empowered to reach a budget agreement that is fair, 
balanced and would end sequestration.
  I agree with President Obama that prior to consideration of 
appropriations bills the House and Senate should first reach agreement 
on an appropriate framework for all appropriations bills and one does 
not harm our economy or require draconian cuts to middle-class 
priorities.
  Without such an agreement, House Republican appropriation bills will 
result in: hundreds of thousands of low-income children losing access 
to Head Start programs; tens of thousands of children with disabilities 
losing federal funding for their special education teachers and aides; 
thousands of federal agents who will not be able to secure the border, 
enforce drug laws, combat violent crime or apprehend fugitives; and 
thousands of scientists without medical grants to conduct research to 
find new treatments and cures for diseases like breast cancer and 
Alzheimer's.
  As Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Border and Maritime 
Security Subcommittee, I will continue working with my colleagues 
across the aisle and in the Senate to ensure that our firefighters and 
other first responders have the resources needed to keep the American 
people safe.
  But I oppose this rule and urge all Members to join me in voting 
against it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 
243, the rule providing for consideration of both H.R. 2216, the Fiscal 
Year 2014 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act and H.R. 2217, the Fiscal Year 2014 
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act because it deems the 
draconian and harmful Ryan budget as law. We should be using this 
opportunity to pass a budget, in consultation with the Senate, which 
will get the economy back on the right track in this new fiscal year. I 
stand before you today to express my opposition to the Ryan budget and 
thereby my opposition to the rule that deems this budget passed.
  The Ryan budget is an economic catastrophe of this Tea Party 
majority's choosing. Support for this rule, and by default the Ryan 
budget, is support for deep cuts to programs that help needy Americans 
as well as for infrastructure programs that put people to work and help 
our businesses thrive. Under the Ryan Budget, draconian limits will be 
placed upon Food Stamps and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 
which would be an enormous detriment to those in poverty. According to 
the National Poverty Center, in 2010, 15.1 percent of Americans lived 
in poverty, the highest rate of poverty since 1993. In the last year, 
the number of Georgians on food stamps has risen to 1.9 million, almost 
20 percent of the population.
  A vote for this rule and the Ryan budget would be a choice to slow 
our economic recovery. Mr. Speaker, I cannot make that choice. I cannot 
choose to cut Head Start for parents who cannot afford daycare or end 
Medicare as we know it for seniors.
  I have heard the complaints from Republicans about the need for a 
budget, which is why this rule is so disappointing. Mr. Speaker, there 
are people in Georgia's Fourth District, and here at the steps of the 
Capitol living on the streets, desperate for food and shelter; yet, Tea 
Party Republicans are willing to exacerbate the situation by snatching 
away the programs that help the poor get back on their feet.
  Do not allow this Tea Party Congress to ``deem'' the Ryan budget as 
law, ignoring regular order, and cutting benefits for those Americans 
who need them the most.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 243 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida

       Strike Section 3, and insert the following new sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the resolution 
     (H. Res. 174) expressing the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that the Speaker should immediately request a 
     conference and appoint conferees to complete work on a fiscal 
     year 2014 budget resolution with the Senate. The first 
     reading of the resolution shall be dispensed with. General 
     debate shall be confined to the resolution and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. 
     After general debate the resolution shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the resolution for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble 
     to adoption without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the resolution, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the resolution.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the resolution specified in section 3 of 
     this resolution.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the

[[Page 7920]]

     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 193, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 186]

                               YEAS--229

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     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
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--193

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     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
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Campbell
     Deutch
     Franks (AZ)
     Granger
     Honda
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Slaughter
     Watt

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. ESHOO, Ms. SINEMA, and Messrs. FOSTER and McGOVERN changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. NUNNELEE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 194, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 187]

                               YEAS--227

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     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
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones

[[Page 7921]]


     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (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
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     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
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     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
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachus
     Campbell
     Deutch
     Granger
     Honda
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Rangel
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Slaughter
     Watt
     Woodall

                          ____________________