[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12232-12239]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4719, FIGHTING HUNGER INCENTIVE ACT 
                                OF 2014

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 670 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 670

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4719) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend 
     and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food 
     inventory. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now 
     printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     113-51 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from Texas 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to 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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 670 provides for the 
consideration of a package of tax deductions for charitable 
contributions to organizations in the form of excess food inventory and 
conservation easements, as well as authorizing tax-free distributions 
from individual retirement accounts, lowering the excise tax on private 
foundations, and extending the date by which taxpayers can make 
charitable contributions to be considered for a tax deduction. This is 
a package of policies, each of which has been supported by the 
overwhelming majorities of both parties.
  The rule before us today provides for a closed rule for H.R. 4719, 
which is the standard rule for tax bills. Of course, the minority will 
have its customary motion to recommit. This is a straightforward rule.
  H.R. 4719, the America Gives More Act of 2014, will benefit the 
countless numbers of Americans who rely on and utilize charitable 
organizations in communities throughout the country. A great incentive 
for many Americans to contribute to those organizations or to 
contribute in a greater capacity than they otherwise might are the tax 
deductions that have been made available by the Federal Government. 
Congress, long ago, decided it was sound public policy to incentivize 
charitable giving, encouraging citizens to open their pocketbooks and 
lend a hand to those less fortunate--and Americans are a generous 
people. Moreover and importantly, today's bill makes these tax 
provisions permanent so that Americans will not have to worry from year 
to year whether the tax deductions on which they have come to rely will 
be available to them that year.
  Recently, the House passed a permanent tax credit for corporate 
research and development. There were 62 Democrats who voted against the 
measure. Their reasoning, as far as I can tell, was not against the 
policy but of maintaining that the measure was not paid for. However, 
pay-fors are something in Congress that we need when we are creating 
new programs or are allocating money not previously appropriated, 
essentially making the American people pay more in taxes. The offsets 
are unnecessary and not needed when we are actually shielding the 
American people from having their money taken in the first place in the 
form of a tax.
  Moreover, we heard on Tuesday night while in the Rules Committee 
markup of today's rule--and I suspect we will hear some about it 
today--the fact that the two tax-related bills before us today in the 
rule are not paid for. Congress only needs to pay for a tax credit if 
one subscribes to the belief that all money in our country belongs 
first to the government, then to the people. I reject this mindset. 
Congress does not need to justify or pay for not taking more money from 
the American people. Congress needs to justify and, thus, pay for 
policies that take money from the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, even if you did subscribe to the notion that all money 
in this country, first and foremost, belongs to the government and that 
the government has to pay for allowing Americans to keep their money, 
the exact provisions contained in the America Gives More Act have 
traditionally not been offset, and Democrats on the Ways and Means 
Committee, on the Rules Committee, and Democratic leadership have often 
voted in favor of these same provisions in un-offset legislation in 
previous years.
  In the absence of a larger, comprehensive tax reform package, 
permanent extenders like these make sense. They bring back stability 
and certainty to businesses that are constantly having to wait to see 
if Congress will, in fact, act. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. The legislation 
consists of a package of five bills previously reported by the Ways and 
Means Committee, which would add an estimated $16 billion to the 
deficit over the next 10 years.
  Like every Member of this body, I strongly support charitable giving. 
I tout the fact in the Rules Committee frequently that I am proud of 
the fact that I work directly with three food pantries--one that I am 
extremely proud of that works with grandmothers and grandfathers who 
are taking care of their children's children and who find great needs. 
I might add that that particular charity has seen a diminution, a 
diminishing, of charitable giving. I might add additionally to that, 
when I look across the board in my community, I find that charitable 
giving is down, and I think that is commensurate with the kind of 
economy that we are in.
  I applaud Americans who donate what they can to the causes they care 
about. I would go as far as to say that I support many of the measures 
that are in this bill. However, in its present form, I cannot support 
it. The Republican majority has divided what used to be a complete 
extenders package into smaller parts, some of which will be debated 
here today and some of which, I predict, will never reach the floor for 
debate, certainly not a vote. My friends have managed to make a 
traditionally nonpartisan and noncontroversial issue both partisan and 
controversial. The provisions we are debating are not paid for and, 
yet, are made permanent.
  I am afraid that this bill is part and parcel in a pattern of what I 
perceive

[[Page 12233]]

as reckless, irresponsible behavior on the part of the majority. 
Republican inconsistency on fiscal responsibility and the deficit is 
stunning. Whenever we are considering a bill they like, they are happy 
to ignore the deficit and waive all of the rules that enforce fiscal 
discipline; but whenever Republicans don't like a proposal, they hide 
behind budget rules to block it. On the one hand, they have blocked or 
delayed everything from extending unemployment insurance, to an SGR doc 
fix, to emergency hurricane relief, demanding that they are fully 
offset. Yet, when it comes to tax credits, they waive their own 
budgeting rules, as they are doing here, and run up the deficit as they 
are doing here. This bill alone will add an additional $16 billion to 
the deficit over 10 years. These are the people who continuously decry 
the fact that we have deficits, and these are the people who continue 
to say that they are spendthrifts in the sense that they are taking 
care of the budget. That is just the beginning.
  Today, the Ways and Means Committee has reported 12 unpaid-for tax 
extenders at a cost of $614 billion over 10 years. The House has passed 
five at a cost of $518 billion over 10 years. I might add this is 
budget hocus-pocus. It was referred to as ``voodoo economics'' at 
another point in time. For example, you take something like we did with 
the highway trust bill earlier, and you pay for it. You spend the money 
in 6 months, and then you pay for it over a 10-year period of time, 
which substantially mitigates against what their intent is rather than 
to do what is needed, and that is a highway infrastructure bill that 
will give our Nation reassurance with reference to construction 
measures and make sure our bridges are not falling down and that our 
roads are safe to drive on.
  Look at the bill that we were dealing with last week. My friends 
threw away another $287 billion, or at least they proposed to. Much of 
this stuff isn't going anywhere, but they proposed to throw away 
another $287 billion on an extenders package just like this one. Let me 
repeat: $287 billion. Now we are going to add another $16 billion to 
that number. It is as if we are looking for new ways to be 
dysfunctional.
  Instead of creating a stable economy, they are picking and choosing 
their favorite provisions and are extending them piece by piece. Rather 
than reforming our Tax Code, they are making it up as they go along. 
Assuredly, all of us have great respect for our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle who have that awesome responsibility of finding the 
ways and the means to fund this government, and I for one--and I am 
sure I speak for many--have great respect for Dave Camp, the chairman 
of that committee.
  At the beginning of this session, Chairman Camp proposed tax reform. 
I might have agreed or disagreed with an awful lot of it, but inside 
his own Conference, he could not get people who would support 
meaningful tax reform. Instead, now, in refutation to much of what he 
had put forward by denying some of these 60-plus extensions--he had 
said that many of them should not be in the measure--they come and 
cherry-pick and get the ones that they want and put them here rather 
than reform this Tax Code.
  Is there anybody in this country, in this Congress, in the House, or 
in the Senate who believes that the Tax Code is fair and simple for 
everybody--business and/or Americans? No. They are making it up as they 
go along--a tax extender here, a tax extender there, something I like 
here, and I don't like that over there.
  Let me tell you what we should be doing. We should be passing bills 
that create jobs in this country.

                              {time}  0930

  We should be repairing our infrastructure, and all of us know this.
  When I came to Congress in 1992, then-President Bill Clinton 
identified--and we agreed--that there were 14,000 bridges in America 
that were in need of repair, but now, what we find is that there are 
substantially more bridges, and some have fallen down in that
period of time, and yet, we are piecemealing the transportation issue, 
kicking the can down the road.
  I commented in the Rules Committee some time back, this kicking the 
can down the road concept, if it were an Olympic sport, then Congress 
would not only get gold and bronze and silver, they would also get 
aluminum because they are real good at kicking the can.
  We should be passing bills that tackle comprehensive immigration 
reform. Is there anybody, including all of the don't come here people 
that are out there shouting at children--in many instances--and mothers 
and people who don't speak our language, that have undertaken the most 
unreasonable, for any of us, journey to try to get to a better life for 
themselves--and people standing there, shouting at them, rather than 
collecting ourselves as a sensible country--of immigrants, I might 
add--and allow, among other things that we try to do, not just 
comprehensive immigration reform, indeed, we should do border security.
  We have to have clarity, not only for those who may seek to come 
here, but for all of us. We need clarity as it pertains to immigration.
  Will they put it on the floor just for a vote? No. It will not 
happen, and yet, we will see this piecemeal, and we will see this back 
and forth some time next week.
  The President proposes $3.7 billion. Someone on the other side said 
that is too much money. The President says we need more judges and more 
lawyers, and we need lawyers on both sides I maintain, and yet, we find 
ourselves in the position of not being able to do anything and not 
doing it hurriedly enough.
  We have this crisis on our border, which doesn't even come close to 
rivaling the many issues that are developing in the world, from Ukraine 
to Israel to Yemen, back across the board to Syria, and countless other 
places, our relationships are in jeopardy, and all of it is placed at 
the hands, if you let these people tell it, of Barack Obama.
  Many of the issues that are developing developed over periods of 
time, and they largely did so because this Congress does not have the 
courage to stand up and do the things that are vitally necessary for 
all of America, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal. The 
needs are great, and we are doing very little of anything at all.
  We have 10 more days until we go on recess to campaign, and when we 
do go on recess to campaign, that will be for the whole month of 
August. Then we will come back here a few weeks in September, and we 
will be gone the whole month of October.
  What in the world would stop us then from having the time and the 
necessity to sit down together in a bipartisan way and come up with 
what is needed for immigration reform in this country?
  We have 3.3 million people--after the expiration of the unemployment 
insurance measures in this country in the month of December, we now 
number 3.3 million people out of work, in the cold, and that has cost 
the economy more than $10 billion.
  Of those 3.3 million people, I remind my friends who stand up here 
with their patriotic notions that they espouse, and I believe they 
believe in our troops. We are fond of saying that around here.
  I believe they believe that we should be secure, as do I, with 
reference to our military, but 300,000 of those people that are 
unemployed are veterans, not to mention all of the problems at the 
veterans hospitals that we need to attend to, rather than finger-
pointing and trying to find measures to beat each other down, rather 
than try to lift America up.
  House Republicans have found time to sue President Obama for doing 
his job, but we haven't found time to pass these important bills.
  I said humorously, before I began to hear it often, that if President 
Obama is going to be sued by the Speaker for doing something, then I 
want to participate in the lawsuit against the Speaker for doing 
nothing.
  We can try to appease the most extreme end of the Republican Party, 
but we can't pass the laws that address the challenges facing Americans 
all across

[[Page 12234]]

this Nation, and for this dereliction of duty, maybe somebody should 
consider when we are talking about a lawsuit--what I said humorously--
really considering suing this institution and its Speaker for not doing 
those things that are a few that I have identified.
  In yesterday's hearing in the Rules Committee, I ended my remarks--
and we had outstanding witnesses, experts in this area, ranging from 
Elizabeth Foley, from Florida International University; to Jonathan 
Turley, from George Washington University; Simon Lazarus, from the 
Constitutional group; and Walter Dellinger--all of them--at least three 
of them being extremely experienced in the subject matter and each of 
them addressing the subject of standing, as I did, in asking them 
questions at different times.
  Most of us know that this lawsuit is not likely to go anywhere, and 
at some point, all of the witnesses agreed that there are challenges 
ahead with reference to this lawsuit, and all of them knew and know 
that there is absolutely no precedent for this action, none.
  There is a case, McClure v. Carter, that has some similarities, but 
even that one did not cross the threshold that is needed. I did end my 
comments by saying that I was being partisan, and I will end this 
portion of my comments by saying I am being partisan.
  These are the people that for the 52 years, nearly, that I am a 
lawyer, that have argued against frivolous lawsuits. If there was ever 
a frivolous lawsuit, then the one that is proposed to be filed by the 
Speaker of this House gives frivolous new meaning. It is indeed just 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on this matter, the 
administration, as it is wont to do, filed administration policy. We 
refer to them in our committees and around the House as a SAP.
  What the administration said is the following:

       The administration supports measures that enhance 
     nonprofits, philanthropic organizations, and faith-based and 
     other community organizations in their many roles, including 
     as a safety net for those most in need, an economic engine 
     for job creation, a tool for environmental conservation that 
     encourages land protections for current and future 
     generations, and an incubator of innovation to foster 
     solutions to some of the Nation's toughest challenges. The 
     President's budget includes a number of proposals that would 
     enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many 
     individuals.

  I am going to come back to this, but before we go forward, if we 
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule 
that would give Members a second opportunity this week to consider 
reversing the damage done by the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court 
decision.
  No employer should have the right to limit the health choices of its 
employees, male or female. It is pure discrimination when 99 percent of 
women in this country have used some form of birth control during their 
lifetime, but to now have to literally go through unreasonable measures 
to simply secure the fundamental health care they need.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, our three women Justices 
stood unanimously against the Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case.
  They sit on the highest court in the Nation, and by no coincidence, 
the three women's dissent is representative of what I heard from the 
women I talked to in my district.
  I asked women at home to send me in three words how they feel about 
the Court's decision. This is what they shared with me: Jennifer from 
Melrose, sad, disappointing, disturbing; Anna from Framingham, 
backwards, scary, hurtful; Jeanine from Waltham, disgusted, wrong, 
outraged; Susan from Cambridge, need more Ginsburgs.
  The Court's decision to strike down women's access to basic health 
care is only the latest in systemic efforts to unwind the progress 
women have made.
  Why aren't we demanding equal pay for women from our employers, 
rather than giving a woman's boss the right to make the most personal 
health care decisions for her and her family?
  Congress has an obligation to correct this course. The amendment and 
the Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act makes 
certain that a woman's boss does not interfere in her basic health 
care. It simply affirms that when the law provides for insurance 
companies to cover basic health care for all, all people are entitled 
to that health care, period.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bera), a good friend who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. BERA of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this 
body about the outrageous Supreme Court decision, the Hobby Lobby case.
  I look at this, not as a Member of Congress, but as a doctor. Now, in 
my training, we took an oath. That oath was to put our patients first, 
to do good.
  My core job as a doctor is to sit with my patients, answer her 
questions, talk about the risks and benefits and the various options 
that are available, but then to empower my patients to make the 
decisions that best fit their lives.
  To women, there is no greater decision than when to start a family, 
when to become a mother, and that is why protecting those reproductive 
rights and reproductive options are so important. That is core to our 
oath as physicians, and that is why the Supreme Court's decision on 
Hobby Lobby was so outrageous.
  We have got to fight against this encroachment of the government or 
the Justices in the Supreme Court coming into my exam room and getting 
between me and my patients. That is outrageous. It is an affront to 
individual liberties. It is an affront to what we do as doctors.
  It is not just me speaking. This is doctors all across America. The 
American Congress of OB/GYNs calls this ruling outrageous.

                              {time}  0945

  We need to have all options available. But what am I to do now if a 
Hobby Lobby employee comes to me as a patient, sits down and says: You 
know, I am not ready to start a family at this juncture. I would like 
to know what my contraceptive options are; I would like to know what 
some of the safest methods are.
  Well, IUDs often are 20 times more effective and are extremely safe, 
but the Supreme Court has now made that option unavailable for me. They 
didn't go to medical school. I did. As a doctor, it is my oath to 
provide all those options.
  Now, others might say, well, that patient can still choose to get it. 
The reason people have health insurance is because they want to have 
health care available when it is necessary. What if that patient can't 
afford that health care option? For many patients, hourly workers, 
often contraception can cost up to $600 a year. They are not able to 
afford it. That is why this is such an outrageous decision. We have got 
to keep the government and the Supreme Court out of our exam room.
  And it is even more personal than that. I am a husband and I am a 
father. I want my daughter to grow up in a country where she is in 
control of her health care decisions, where she is in control of her 
body.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. BERA of California. So as a doctor, as a father of a daughter, I 
am proud to support the Not My Boss' Business Act because it puts 
patients back in charge of their health care decisions. We, as a 
country, prize individual liberties and individual freedoms above all. 
So this gives those decisions back to the patients.
  Mr. BURGESS. I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 12235]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler), my classmate and good friend.
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question in order to bring the Protect Women's Health from 
Corporate Interference Act to the floor.
  In 1993, I was a leader in passing the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act, or RFRA. If you had told me then that RFRA would one day be used 
to allow employers to dictate to employees what preventive health care 
they can or cannot use, if you had told me then that I would stand on 
the House floor in 2014 fighting to ensure that women have the ability 
to make their own most basic health care decisions regardless of their 
boss' religious beliefs, I would never have believed it.
  We wrote that bill to be a shield to protect an individual's personal 
exercise of religious beliefs, not a sword to enable employers to 
impose their religious beliefs on their employees.
  No matter how sincerely held a religious belief might be, for-profit 
employers, like Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood, must not be allowed to 
impose their beliefs or that belief on their employees as a means of 
denying their employees access to critical preventive health care 
services.
  I was proud to work with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) 
and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) to introduce this 
simple legislation to ensure that, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's 
mangling of RFRA, employers cannot deny their employees access to 
federally mandated health services.
  Every woman must have the right to follow her own beliefs and 
guidance when making health care choices. This bill simply guarantees 
that the boss' beliefs cannot supersede that right.
  I was disappointed to see that none of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle voted earlier this week to bring this bill to the 
floor. I urge them to stand with us today or else, when they go home 
this weekend, to tell the men and women of their districts that their 
health care decisions are now going to be made for them by their 
bosses, regardless of their own choices, regardless of their own 
religious beliefs or the doctor's recommendations; and tell them that 
you believe that their boss' religious beliefs must be imposed on them, 
notwithstanding their own religious beliefs, which don't count; and 
tell them you did nothing to stop this.
  This country will not stand for that. We have fought for too long to 
preserve the right of all Americans to make their own health care 
choices and, I must add, to make their own religious decisions to 
refuse to act now.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, 
allow this bill to come to the floor, and send a strong message that 
health care choices are not your boss' business and that your religious 
beliefs trump your boss' religious beliefs.
  Your boss has a right to his beliefs. You have a right to your 
beliefs. Government must not allow him to impose his beliefs on you.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I am a proud cosponsor of the measure that was just spoken to, and I 
am very pleased that my colleague came here to speak on it.
  Rather than read the entirety of the Statement of Administration 
Policy at this time, I will submit that statement for the Record.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


               H.R. 4719--America Gives More Act of 2014

        (Rep. Reed, R-New York, and 9 cosponsors, July 17, 2014)

       The Administration supports measures that enhance non-
     profits, philanthropic organizations, and faith-based and 
     other community organizations in their many roles, including 
     as a safety net for those most in need, an economic engine 
     for job creation, a tool for environmental conservation that 
     encourages land protections for current and future 
     generations, and an incubator of innovation to foster 
     solutions to some of the Nation's toughest challenges. The 
     President's Budget includes a number of proposals that would 
     enhance and simplify charitable giving incentives for many 
     individuals.
       However, the Administration strongly opposes House passage 
     of H.R. 4719, which would permanently extend three current 
     provisions that offer enhanced tax breaks for certain 
     donations and add another two similar provisions without 
     offsetting the cost. If this same, unprecedented approach of 
     making certain traditional tax extenders permanent without 
     offsets were followed for the other traditional tax 
     extenders, it would add $500 billion or more to deficits over 
     the next ten years, wiping out most of the deficit reduction 
     achieved through the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2013. 
     Just two months ago, House Republicans themselves passed a 
     budget resolution that required offsetting any tax extenders 
     that were made permanent with other revenue measures.
       As with other similar proposals, Republicans are imposing a 
     double standard by adding to the deficit to continue and 
     create tax breaks that primarily benefit higher-income 
     individuals, while insisting on offsetting the proposed 
     extension of emergency unemployment benefits and the 
     discretionary funding increases for defense and non-defense 
     priorities such as research and development in the Bipartisan 
     Budget Act of 2013. House Republicans also are making clear 
     their priorities by rushing to make these tax cuts permanent 
     without offsets even as the House Republican budget 
     resolution calls for raising taxes on 26 million working 
     families and students by letting important improvements to 
     the Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and education 
     tax credits expire.
       The Administration wants to work with Congress to make 
     progress on measures that strengthen America's social sector. 
     However, H.R. 4719 represents the wrong approach.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 4719, his senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Now, there is something else we need to 
discuss about this rule. Once again, we are debating a closed rule.
  When I came to Congress, I was listening on the radio. I didn't know 
very much about rules. And a part of why Democrats in the majority 
lost, in my opinion, was the harangue that was going on on the radio 
about closed rules.
  Well, I came here, and I wound up on the Rules Committee, and now I 
know a little bit about closed rules. I also know that we have set an 
all-time record in the history of the United States Congress, for now, 
in this particular rule that is before the House of Representatives, 
the 65th time this session, we are going to have a closed rule. What 
that means, America, is that your Representative on either side will 
not have an opportunity to offer an amendment to this measure with 
reference to tax extenders. This is the most closed rules that this 
Congress has considered ever, and I expect we are not finished yet and 
that the number of closed rules will continue to grow.
  We started the 113th session with a pledge of transparency and 
openness from the Speaker of the House, but that has fallen by the 
wayside, and it has done so in historic proportion. Enough already. The 
majority should do the responsible thing and bring up bills that 
actually matter, bills that will address the many challenges facing 
this country, challenges, as I have pointed out before, about our 
crumbling infrastructure and, most importantly, creating jobs, even as 
it pertains to immigration reform.
  Everyone who looks at that measure that says, if we had clear 
immigration policy, whether it was dealing with H-1B visas, whether it 
was dealing with farmworkers, whatever the measure, that it would 
increase our revenue in this country and enhance our overall economic 
circumstances.
  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'' to defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
65th closed rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me try to take some of these points in order that we 
have heard over the last 45 minutes.

[[Page 12236]]

  The gentleman talks about tax reform. I hope that means that he is 
prepared to join me on H.R. 1040, a measure that would provide a flat 
tax to the citizens of the United States. There is no more egregious 
function that most of us have to deal with every year than dealing with 
the IRS.
  Unfortunately, because of the actions of the administration, the IRS 
now stands in ill favor with a majority of Americans. The President, 
himself, promised in 2013 that he would get to the bottom of the 
problems in the IRS and that he would get them corrected. I believe 
that he should. This is the agency with which we all have to deal every 
year. No one likes the taxman, but it is imperative that the American 
people have the confidence in the agency that is tasked with collecting 
their taxes.
  On the issue of the VA, it is in conference. We will hear from them. 
Is the VA going to require a higher appropriation than we gave a few 
weeks ago? Perhaps. But I would also like to see the new administrator, 
the new Secretary of the VA be able to discharge people from his 
employment if they have, in fact, acted in bad faith.
  I must have missed the firings that have occurred at the VA amongst 
the Senior Executive Service. I am not even talking about political 
appointees. I am talking about people who are lifers within the VA who 
seem perfectly content to continue business as usual. You are not going 
to fix that problem if you just pump more taxpayer money into the 
system. I wouldn't disagree that more money may be necessary at the VA, 
but we do have to fix the problem that is endemic in the agency if we 
don't expect the same result to be clearly evident in 2 or 3 years' 
time.
  Let me just talk briefly about the issue that came up about the 
Supreme Court decision. Unlike Mr. Nadler, I was not here in 1993 and 
1994. I was not part of the Congress that passed the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act, but many of the same people who wrote and voted for 
and defended the Affordable Care Act, the cast of characters is 
remarkably similar. In fact, the gentleman from New York, Senator 
Schumer, when he was a Member of the House, was, I believe, the lead 
sponsor of that, and he is now in the Senate. The majority leader in 
the Senate was a ``yes'' vote on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  So this is a law that was written by Democratic sponsors in a 
Democratic-controlled House, signed by a Democratic President. How 
could they not know? How could they not know of its existence when they 
were writing the Affordable Care Act?
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURGESS. Let me continue with this thought, and if there is time, 
I will consider yielding to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Now, while they were crafting the Affordable Care Act, they were 
fully cognizant of the same restrictions they had written into law in 
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Supreme Court simply looked 
at the facts and said that a Federal agency--in this case, the 
Department of Health and Human Services--in a rulemaking activity 
cannot negate a law that was passed by the people's representatives in 
the Congress. I think that is as it should be.
  If there was anything, there were drafting errors in the Affordable 
Care Act. I have spoken about that time and again. But why weren't the 
same people who were tasked with writing the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act, why weren't they watchful while they were writing 
their own health care law?
  Now, let's talk for just a minute about the Hobby Lobby decision. The 
first thing--and it is important to stress this--no FDA-approved 
contraceptive that was available to women before the decision is 
unavailable after the decision. The Court simply said that the 
government cannot force a citizen to violate his or her religious 
beliefs paying for medicine that a citizen believes takes a life. No 
employer before or after Hobby Lobby can prevent a woman from 
purchasing any contraceptive that is currently available.
  We also heard criticism from the minority that the House was doing 
other things than doing its work. I would just point out that the House 
is doing its work. Forty jobs bills have passed this House and are 
sitting, waiting for activity over in the Senate. And we saw how 
quickly the SKILLS Act, after the Senate renamed it and it came back to 
the House, how quickly it got to the President's desk. So the fact that 
the bills are over there waiting is a problem of the other body. It is 
not a problem of the House. The House has been doing its work.
  Yesterday we passed the Financial Services Appropriations bill. Mr. 
Speaker, I would ask rhetorically: When was the last time that the 
House passed the Financial Services Appropriations bill? It was 2007, 
the first year that the Democrats had taken over the majority. We 
haven't seen an appropriations bill for Financial Services in--what?--5 
years' time. This was a landmark achievement yesterday.
  Let's look for just a moment at the number of amendments that have 
been heard under open rules. On appropriations bills this year, we are 
through seven appropriations bills as we sit here in the middle of 
July. That is a significant achievement in and of itself. There have 
been 395 amendments heard to appropriations bills. That hardly sounds 
like a closed process. There have been 210 Republican amendments, 185 
Democratic amendments, and that was exclusive of yesterday's passed 
appropriations bill.
  So I don't think you can rationally make the argument that the House 
is not doing its work and that, as we go through the appropriations 
process, it is not open.

                              {time}  1000

  I have some other things that I want to say about the deficit, but I 
will be happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding for just a moment 
because this is a colleague from Texas, and there are many issues that 
we have agreed on with respect to Texas.
  I might say to you that I am a strong proponent of religious liberty. 
You had mentioned Hobby Lobby in terms of some of the issues you were 
discussing. I think I have stood fast on that question. I only raise 
the point, and you made the point that anything that was approved pre-
Hobby Lobby by the FDA, but in actuality we know that, just from the 
religious liberty point of view, this is a slippery slope because it 
pits the large entity against the individual rights, and we know under 
our Constitution that the very premise of religious freedom is the idea 
that there is no pronounced, structured religious plan in place that 
denies me my freedom. And that is what you have done to women as it 
relates--when I say ``you,'' excuse me--that is what the decision has 
done. It has made the boss in charge of an individual.
  I would just make the argument we can stand for religious liberty, 
but we must stand for it not only for corporations but for individuals 
such as women who use contraception for health care, Doctor. And you 
know that that happens. You are certainly very much an experienced 
medical professional. I would just make the argument that I can't 
imagine in the course of your medical history that you have not seen 
women who need contraception for health care.
  The other point that I would just finish on is that, as I indicated 
on the question of a slippery slope, how else can a corporation suggest 
that I am, because of my needs, infringing upon their religious 
liberty? I am obviously going to be disadvantaged because, in essence, 
I am a minority of one. I am an employee. I am scared for my job. But I 
need to be able to express my religious freedom, and it may infringe 
upon someone else's. Let us be careful about this. And I frankly hope--
--
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I need to reclaim my time. Mr. Speaker, 
slippery slopes work both ways, and those people who are worried about 
laws that would require the ending of life are worried about that 
slippery slope as well.

[[Page 12237]]

  I would just reiterate the point: no contraceptive that was 
previously available is now unavailable because of the Hobby Lobby 
decision. If there are problems in the way the law was written, I would 
remind people it was a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President 
who signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and it was a 
Democratic Congress and a Democratic President that signed the 
Affordable Care Act. They perhaps should have taken better care in 
writing their law.
  We had the hearing yesterday in the Rules Committee about the 
President taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. Perhaps we 
ought to have a faithful writing of the laws, as well.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of the America 
Gives More Act of 2014, making permanent the tax deductions for 
charitable contributions to food banks and conservation easements, and 
allowing for tax-free IRA deductions. It is a sound public policy, and 
I am certainly grateful to my colleague from New York (Mr. Reed) for 
writing this legislation, which will have a positive impact on the 
countless charities in this country which provide such critical 
services to our neighbors in need.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 670 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. 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 bill (H.R. 
     5051) to ensure that employers cannot interfere in their 
     employees' birth control and other health care decisions. 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 among and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce, the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and 
     Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. 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. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the bill, 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 bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 5051.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  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 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 670, if 
ordered, and adopting the motion to instruct on H.R. 3230.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 186, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 428]

                               YEAS--226

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     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

[[Page 12238]]


     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--186

     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
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Byrne
     Campbell
     Carney
     Clarke (NY)
     Conyers
     DesJarlais
     Hanabusa
     Kingston
     Labrador
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Miller, Gary
     Nunnelee
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Simpson
     Sires
     Stivers
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1031

  Mr. CICILLINE and Ms. PELOSI changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. KINZINGER, FORBES, PETERSON, ADERHOLT, and Mrs. HARTZLER 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 428 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 183, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 429]

                               AYES--230

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     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
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--183

     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
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Byrne
     Campbell
     Carney
     Conyers
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (TN)
     Hanabusa
     Kingston
     Larson (CT)
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Miller, Gary
     Nunnelee
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Scott, David
     Simpson
     Sires
     Stivers
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1039

  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.

[[Page 12239]]

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

                          ____________________