Amendment Text: H.Amdt.530 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (01/15/2014)

This Amendment appears on page H253-254 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H244-H255]
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 3547, SPACE 
     LAUNCH LIABILITY INDEMNIFICATION EXTENSION ACT; PROVIDING FOR 
 PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 17, 2014, THROUGH JANUARY 
                    24, 2014; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 458 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 458

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     3547) to extend the application of certain space launch 
     liability provisions through 2014, with the Senate amendments 
     thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention 
     of any point of order, a single motion offered by the chair 
     of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the 
     House (1) concur in the Senate amendment to the title and (2) 
     concur in the Senate amendment to the text with an amendment 
     inserting the text of Rules Committee Print 113-32 in lieu of 
     the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate. The Senate 
     amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of the motion specified in the first 
     section of this resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 74 
     shall be considered as adopted.
       Sec. 3.  The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may 
     insert in the Congressional Record not later than January 16, 
     2014, such material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate 
     amendments and the motion specified in the first section of 
     this resolution.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     January 17, 2014, through January 24, 2014--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), my colleague and friend, 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. COLE. Madam 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 Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for the consideration of H.R. 3547. The rule authorizes 
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to offer a motion that 
the House concur in the Senate amendment with the House amendment 
consisting of the text of the fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations 
bill.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
Additionally, the rule conforms the title to the content of the bill by 
providing for the passage of an enrollment correction after the 
adoption of Chairman Rogers' motion.

                              {time}  1245

  Lastly, Madam Speaker, the rule provides floor management tools to be 
used during next week's recess.
  Madam Speaker, I want to commend my good friends Chairman Rogers and 
Ranking Member Lowey for bringing to this House a bipartisan bill that 
brings to a close the fiscal year 2014 appropriations process while 
maintaining the Republican commitment to fiscal responsibility.
  Since Republicans took control of the House, we have cut 
discretionary spending 4 years in a row--the first time since the 
Korean war. At the same time, this bill provides no new funding for the 
Affordable Care Act and also includes a pension fix for medically 
retired personnel and survivor benefit plan annuitants. While there is 
still work to be done to ensure that we honor the service of our 
veterans and military retirees, this is a good, bipartisan first step.
  Madam Speaker, I know many of my friends here voted against the Ryan-
Murray compromise budget, and they voted against the fiscal cliff deal 
of 2011. However, look at where these pieces of legislation have 
brought us. We have cut discretionary spending 4 years in a row, to a 
level $164 billion below the fiscal year 2008 level, the last year of 
the Bush Presidency. That is a feat to be commended. We have dealt with 
tax expenditures, in part, as a portion of the fiscal cliff deal. Yet, 
despite this progress, we still have not been able to close over $600 
billion of our annual budget deficit.
  Madam Speaker, discretionary spending has paid more than its fair 
share in dealing with our budget deficit. Entitlements such as Medicare 
and Medicaid spending and other mandatory programs must be reformed in 
order to put us on a path to a balanced budget.
  With the passage of this omnibus, which releases us from the threat 
of a government shutdown, we are showing the American people that we 
actually are capable of working in a bipartisan manner. I hope in the 
future we can work to capitalize on our bipartisan success and bring 
America's bloated debt and deficit under control.
  Madam Speaker, passing this rule and this omnibus spending bill is 
the responsible thing to do. It is the thoughtful thing to do. As 
opposed to lurching from crisis to crisis, this omnibus is carefully 
crafted over a period of many months. And it sets priorities, controls 
spending, and reasserts congressional authority over the appropriations 
process far more effectively than yet another continuing resolution 
ever could.
  Many of our colleagues have not seen regular order in the 
appropriations process. And, sadly, until the Senate is able to pass 
bills for us to conference together, I think we will be forced into 
relying on omnibuses in the future. But this is not a continuing 
resolution. The Ryan-Murray agreement gives us a reasonable foundation 
for our work in fiscal year 2015.
  With that, I urge support of the rule and the underlying bill, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, what we have before us can be 
described--very charitably--as a mixed bag. This is a 1,500-page bill 
that nobody has actually read. This is, by the way, two-sided. It came 
before the Rules Committee less than 24 hours after it was filed. 
Because of this rule and the process used to create the bill, no 
Member, Republican or Democrat, will have the opportunity to amend it 
or change it in any way.
  To top it all off, the legislative vehicle that the Republican 
leadership is using to rocket this bill over to the Senate is H.R. 
3547, the Space Launch Liability Indemnification Act. No wonder the 
American people think Congress is living on another planet.
  When people talk about regular order, this ain't it.
  But we are where we are. And I do want to thank Chairman Rogers, 
Ranking Member Lowey, and the House and Senate appropriators for their 
hard work in putting the underlying omnibus appropriations bill 
together.
  I will support this bill, very reluctantly, because the alternative 
is far worse--yet another Republican shutdown of the government, yet 
another unnecessary economically devastating and politically motivated 
mess, yet another attempt by congressional Republicans to damage an 
economy still

[[Page H245]]

struggling to recover from the worst recession in our lifetimes.
  So, yes, I will vote for the bill, but we need to curb our 
enthusiasm. The numbers in this bill are awful. They may be slightly 
less awful than the Republican sequester numbers, but they are still 
awful.
  Fewer kids will be cut from Head Start, but we are nowhere near 
meeting our educational needs. More funds will be provided for critical 
medical research, but not enough. There will be more funding for LIHEAP 
for our cities and towns and for antihunger programs. While it begins 
to undo the sequester, it does so for only 2 years. We need to get rid 
of it forever--permanently.
  With this bill, we are waist-deep instead of neck-deep in manure. 
Hooray, I guess.
  Even so, I am sure that many Tea Party members of this House will 
vote against this bill today because they still think it spends too 
much. All of the right-wing outside groups who really call the shots 
around here are whipping hard against it.
  But more importantly, Madam Speaker, what is missing from this bill 
or from the Republican leadership's agenda is any acknowledgment of the 
immediate problem of millions of people who are losing their long-term 
unemployment benefits.
  On December 28, 1.3 million unemployed Americans saw their long-term 
unemployment insurance expire, including more than 58,000 in 
Massachusetts. Since then, unemployment insurance has expired for an 
additional 72,000 more Americans each week. Yet the Republicans 
continue to do nothing.
  Let me remind my colleagues how we got here.
  After a difficult economic period in the early nineties and prolonged 
budget fights, President Clinton left us with a budget surplus, a 
surplus that was then squandered through unpaid-for wars and reckless 
tax cuts championed by President Bush and the Republican Congress. The 
Clinton surplus turned into a then-record deficit that was exacerbated 
by the global recession that started at the end of the Bush 
administration.
  Six years after President Bush left office, we still have an 
unacceptable level of unemployment and an economy that is getting 
better for some while, at the same time, leaving many behind. And that 
is where unemployment insurance comes in.
  This program is a lifeline for millions of people who lost their 
jobs--for most, because of the recession and not because of any issues 
regarding job performance. Unemployment insurance helps millions of 
families pay their bills and put food on their tables, things they 
could do if they had jobs, but they can't because they are unemployed.
  Yet Republicans in the Senate continue to filibuster a bill to extend 
unemployment insurance, and the House Republican leadership refuses 
even to consider any bill. We can't even get a bill on this floor so 
that Members of both sides of the aisle can have a chance to express 
their views. It is shameful, it is unconscionable, and it hurts our 
economic growth.

  Madam Speaker, this isn't about some abstract piece of Federal 
policy. This is about the lives of our own citizens. It is about our 
neighbors who are simply trying to get by. It is about people who are 
willing to work but need help until they find a new job. They deserve a 
hell of a lot better than they are getting from this Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we 
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule 
that will allow the House to hold a vote on a clean, 3-month 
unemployment insurance extension. This has been introduced by my 
colleague from Massachusetts, Congressman Tierney. If Congress doesn't 
act, over 18 million Americans will be denied the vital relief that 
they so greatly depend upon.
  Madam 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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will again, before this debate is 
over, remind my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous 
question.
  Let me just close, again, by saying we need to move this process 
forward. I expect that that is what this omnibus will do. But we are 
about to leave for a break, starting tomorrow, one of the many breaks 
that the Republican leadership constantly gives us. So we are going to 
leave town, and meanwhile all these millions of Americans who are 
depending on us to help them get through this difficult time are just 
going to be left alone. We are going to turn our backs on them. That 
is, to me, unconscionable.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with us and 
defeat the previous question so we can deal with this issue of 
unemployment insurance.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to respond to 
my friend.
  I want to thank my friend for his support of what is a bipartisan 
bill, a bill for which the President of the United States also issued a 
statement of support. We appreciate that. I would suggest that we are 
actually doing what my friend quite often suggested we do--work in a 
bipartisan manner and arrive at a common solution.
  I would add one thing to my friend's description of the 1990s. We 
ought to give a little bit of credit to the Republican majority who 
actually voted for those agreements--when most Democrats did not--that 
balanced the budget, and particularly Speaker Gingrich, because, with 
all due respect to President Clinton, he never once submitted a 
balanced budget.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop), my good friend, a colleague from the Rules Committee and 
a classmate.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy 
with Agriculture Committee Chairman Lucas of Oklahoma and Interior 
Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Calvert of California regarding 
the issue of Federal land ownership and Payments in Lieu of Taxes, 
commonly known as PILT.
  PILT is a program for counties all across America that have federally 
owned lands within their boundaries. Counties in every State, except 
Rhode Island, benefit from this program first established in 1979. PILT 
helps to offset the loss of property tax revenues caused by the 
presence of Federal land. The Federal Government is the largest 
landowner in the United States, and PILT fulfills the Federal 
Government's obligation to local communities where their ownership 
presence is the greatest.
  One out of every 3 acres in our country is federally owned. As you 
can see from the map, most of this land is concentrated in the West. 
Counties with Federal land in their jurisdictions are denied property 
tax revenues typical of communities with privately owned land. The 
diminished tax base hinders rural communities from fulfilling some of 
their most basic functions, such as education and public safety.
  PILT's previous funding has expired, and now we are in a situation 
where we have to find a new source. We were pleased yesterday when the 
Speaker and majority leader pledged their support to the Western Caucus 
that qualified counties would receive 2014 funding.
  Subcommittee Chairman Calvert, as we continue to work on 2014 funding 
matters, it seems apparent that funding for PILT will be included in 
another important legislative vehicle in the future. Is that your 
understanding?
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CALVERT. The gentleman is correct. PILT has been a mandatory 
program under the jurisdiction of authorizing committees since fiscal 
year 2008. Fiscal year 2007 was the last year that PILT was funded with 
discretionary funds. In fact, funding for PILT last year was provided 
within the MAP-21 transportation bill.
  Had PILT funding been provided in the Interior division of the 
omnibus, the committee would not have been able to adequately address 
other critical issues important to the western Members.

[[Page H246]]

  PILT is very important to my own State of California, which is the 
largest recipient of PILT payments, with over $41 million received in 
fiscal year 2013. Like my good friend, I am absolutely committed to 
securing PILT funding for our counties in fiscal year 2014.
  It is my understanding that Chairman Lucas has agreed to carry PILT 
funding in the farm bill in the conference report.
  Chairman Lucas, do you concur?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. I yield my friend an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. LUCAS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS. Yes, Mr. Calvert, I do. I have already had a conversation 
with Chairwoman Stabenow, who is a strong supporter of PILT funding, as 
well as Chairman Hastings of the House Natural Resources Committee, 
whose committee oversees the program. I also have the backing of House 
Republican leadership.
  I can assure you both that it is my intention to provide funding for 
PILT in the final conference committee agreement on the farm bill. I am 
very much aware of the importance of this program for rural communities 
across America in providing funding for necessary functions like 
police, education, and infrastructure.
  Thank you for this opportunity to discuss this important issue, and I 
look forward to working with you on this in the very near future.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Thank you.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means.

                              {time}  1300

  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Thank you to the gentleman for yielding.
  More than 1.5 million long-term unemployed have now been cut off 
unemployment insurance with the expiration of the Federal program, 
thrown out of work through no fault of their own, and desperately, 
desperately looking for a job. They are powerless and, to many in 
Washington, they are nameless, only a number.
  So those who oppose extending this lifeline of unemployment insurance 
can talk about their compassion, but rather than meeting and talking 
with Americans searching for work, they are throwing them to the 
wolves, whether of hunger, helplessness or even homelessness.
  We, I promise everybody, will strive to help change that these next 
11 days, as House Republicans recess.
  Consider this: when Walmart advertised 600 jobs in D.C., 23,000 
people applied. When a dairy plant was reopened in Hagerstown, 
Maryland, 1,600 people applied for a few dozen jobs.
  This should not be a partisan issue. Republicans are making it such 
with their cold shoulder and their stonewall in this House.
  It is unconscionable for Republicans to close down this House without 
lifting a single finger to help 1.5 million Americans and to prevent a 
vote by those of us ready to act. It is unconscionable.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a great Member from 
Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Smith and 
Chairman Rogers for their work to put this bill together. This is a 
product of months of work on the part of our appropriators, under 
regular order, to give us the framework for this bill.
  I have the pleasure of serving as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Space, as well as being one of the lead sponsors on the underlying 
indemnification bill. This is a simple, yet crucial, policy that allows 
our space industry to remain globally competitive as they support and 
service satellites Americans rely upon every day.
  I welcome this 3-year extension, and I also appreciate the 
consideration this package has given my NASA reauthorization bill.
  The larger package also begins to address issues facing homeowners 
across the Nation, not just in coastal areas, by including the Palazzo-
Cassidy-Grimm-Richmond amendment that has received wide bipartisan 
support in both the House and the Senate.
  This provision halts all FEMA work through the end of this fiscal 
year to implement rate increases on some of those homeowners affected 
by flood map changes. This provision sets the stage for broader reforms 
that we are working towards later this month or the next.
  With this bill, we also maintain our commitments to our men and women 
in uniform by restoring damaging defense cuts. We address cost-of-
living adjustments for 63,000 medically retired military personnel and 
survivors receiving those benefits. I plan to continue working to 
address cost-of-living increases for all of our military retirees.
  We provide for a well-deserved 1 percent increase in troop pay, and 
it also provides funding for homeland security priorities, such as the 
seventh and eighth National Security Cutters for the Coast Guard.
  Finally, this bill continues the pattern of responsible cuts to 
government waste, fraud and abuse. It represents $165 billion in total 
discretionary cuts since 2010, and is part of our commitment, as House 
Republicans, to continue cutting spending responsibly.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their work on this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), who is the ranking member of the Financial 
Services Committee.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, while this agreement is an improvement 
over the harmful sequester, it fails to adequately fund Wall Street's 
cops, shortchanges many housing programs, and ignores the global 
economy.
  While the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission need more resources to oversee Wall Street, 
this bill only provides flat funding to the already-underfunded SEC and 
a nominal bump for the CFTC. Yes, no furloughs, but no new examiners 
either.
  Regarding housing, the bill offers minimal increases for section 8 
vouchers and the Community Development Block Grant program but not 
enough for Americans struggling with long-term unemployment and 
foreclosure.
  Finally, Republican isolationists have excluded the International 
Monetary Fund reform package. Democrats and businesses agree a well-
equipped IMF that leverages billions of global dollars is in our 
national interest.
  Despite these concerns, we must pass this bill. Reluctantly, I 
support this bill. We have to stop the sequester and prevent another 
government shutdown.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Swalwell) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend 
unemployment benefits that protect 238,855, and counting, workers in my 
home State of California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is advised that all time has 
been yielded for purposes of debate only. Does the gentleman from 
Oklahoma yield for purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits 
that protect 49,965 workers in Michigan.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Tonko) for a unanimous consent request.

[[Page H247]]

  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3824 to end the Republican majority's refusal to extend unemployment 
benefits that would protect 137,315 workers in my home State of New 
York, and that number is growing as we speak.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Engel) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3824 to end the Republicans' unconscionable refusal to extend 
unemployment benefits that protect 137,315 workers in my home State of 
New York.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Ms. Titus) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. TITUS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3824 to end Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits that 
protect over 19,000 workers in Nevada.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Takano) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits 
that benefit over one-quarter of a million people in my home State of 
California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman 
from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up 
H.R. 3824 to end the Republican leadership's refusal to extend 
unemployment benefits that protect unemployed workers in my State of 
New Hampshire.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up 
H.R. 3824 to end Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits 
that protect 238,855 workers in California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend 
unemployment benefits that protect 238,855 workers in my home State of 
California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), my colleague, for a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits 
that protect nearly 63,000 workers in Massachusetts.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3824 to end the unfortunate Republican refusal to extend unemployment 
benefits that protect 238,855 workers in my home State of California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3824 to end Republicans' shameful refusal to extend unemployment 
benefits that protect 238,855 workers in California, my State.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada 
(Mr. Horsford) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3824 to end Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment insurance 
benefits that protect 19,285 workers in the great State of Nevada.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ruiz) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. RUIZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment insurance 
that protects 238,855 workers in California who lost their job through 
no fault of their own, and who actively seek work.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?

[[Page H248]]

  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cardenas) for a unanimous consent request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. First, the Chair would make a statement.
  The Chair would advise Members that even though a unanimous consent 
request to consider a measure is not entertained, embellishments 
accompanying such request constitute debate and will become an 
imposition on the time of the Member who yielded for that purpose.
  Mr. CARDENAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring to this 
floor H.R. 3824 to end Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment 
benefits that protect families in the San Fernando Valley of which I 
represent. These individuals deserve the right to eat and should not be 
tossed out on the street and become homeless.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Time will be charged to the gentleman from Massachusetts for the last 
request.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Frankel) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' very cruel refusal to end 
unemployment benefits that would protect more than 80,000 Floridian job 
seekers in my home State of Florida.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I will not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Brownley) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
bring up H.R. 3824 to end Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment 
benefits that protect nearly 239,000 workers in the great State of 
California.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up 
H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment 
benefits that protect 80,473 workers in my home State, the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from New York 
(Mrs. Maloney) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end the majority's refusal to extend 
unemployment benefits to some of our Nation's neediest families, 
including 137,315 workers in the great State of New York.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, with the hope of a different response 
from my friend on the other side of the aisle, I ask one more time for 
unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' refusal 
to extend unemployment benefits that protect 5,585 workers in my home 
State of Rhode Island.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. My good friend from the other side of the aisle clearly 
hasn't dealt with a lot of Native Americans, where the answer is 
normally pretty much the same. So, Madam Speaker, I do not yield.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request, I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring forward 
H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' unconscionable refusal to extend the 
unemployment insurance which, in my State, would benefit some 62,900 
workers in search of work.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma yield for 
purposes of this unanimous consent request?
  Mr. COLE. No, Madam Speaker, I do not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma does not yield. 
Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for giving me the 
opportunity to renew so many acquaintances with my good friends on the 
other side and make some new ones. So I appreciate that.
  I want to reiterate my earlier announcement that all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only, and we are not yielding for any other 
purposes.
  I would like to make the point that this legislation is genuinely 
bipartisan. The legislation that my friends have asked for 
consideration was not within the scope of consideration of this 
legislation. I have no doubt it is being dealt with in the Senate right 
now, but it is simply not appropriate, in my opinion, to bring it into 
this debate, particularly since we are under time constraints. Were we 
to fail to pass this rule and the underlying legislation in a timely 
fashion, we would risk a government shutdown, which I know my friends 
on the other side of the aisle want to avoid as much as we do.
  So, with that, I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just say to my colleague from 
Oklahoma, we are not asking to amend this bill. We are asking for the 
right to be able to bring up a bill that would extend unemployment 
insurance.
  Let's be clear so everybody understands this. The majority, if they 
agreed, could allow us to bring this up at any time. We could have this 
debate right after we pass the omnibus. So there is absolutely no 
reason at all that we shouldn't have the right to be able to debate the 
issue of extending unemployment insurance to millions of our fellow 
citizens who are looking to us for help.
  It is very challenging during these economically difficult times to 
be able to find employment, and we have many of our citizens who have 
tried but have been unsuccessful in finding employment. They ought to 
be able to support their families through this difficult time. All we 
are asking for is the right to be able to bring this up and vote on it. 
We are not talking about delaying passing the omnibus bill. We are 
talking about unemployment insurance. We

[[Page H249]]

are talking about doing our job and not skipping town and going home 
for a week while people who are unemployed and have lost their benefits 
have nothing.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), whose legislation we could bring up, if we 
were to defeat the previous question, to extend unemployment insurance 
for the millions of Americans that have been impacted.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Madam Speaker, some 1.3 million workers have lost their 
jobless benefits as of December 28. That number grows by an estimated 
72,000 more a week. In my home State of Massachusetts, alone, some 
62,915 families have been adversely impacted, and that includes 20,000 
veterans.
  We can hear the urgency of families who have exhausted every avenue, 
have exhausted the savings, the generosity of family and friends, even 
as they look for work. About 4 million people have been cut out of work 
for 27 weeks or longer. They have about a 12 percent chance of finding 
a new job in any given month. There are still not enough jobs to go 
around, almost three unemployed workers per every job opening. That is 
worse than the ratio at any point during the 2001 recession.
  If the fate of individuals doesn't move the Members of this Chamber, 
perhaps a look at the economy would. For every $1 of unemployment 
insurance, the economic impact is a positive $1.52. That is money with 
which to buy essential services and products of our local and small 
businesses, who greatly need that demand.
  Seventeen times over the last decade or so we have extended benefits 
in a bipartisan manner. Fourteen of those times were bipartisan in 
nature, and five of those were under the administration of George W. 
Bush.

  The urgency is now; the need is critical. I have introduced, Madam 
Speaker, the responsible legislation, entitled the Emergency 
Unemployment Compensation Act, H.R. 3824. It has over 140 cosponsors 
already, even though it has been filed only a matter of days. Speaker 
Boehner should bring this bill to the floor immediately for a vote. Let 
us act now and extend it for 3 months, and help our neighbors help 
themselves as we help our Nation.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to remind my good friend that this 
legislation is comparable, and this is actually under consideration in 
the United States Senate right now. Frankly, my friends on the other 
side of the aisle control the majority there.
  I would also like to remind them that when the President first raised 
this issue about a week before the end of the year, the Speaker said, 
If you will help us find a way to pay for it, we will consider it. So 
far I don't recall that that offer has been taken up in any serious way 
by anybody.
  The cost of this is extraordinary: $25 billion over a year; a 
temporary 3-month extension would cost between 7 and 8. We are trying 
to deal with what have been, really, deficits that have been 
extraordinary. This program has been extended for 5 years.
  Again, we would love to continue our dialogue with our friends. We 
hope something productive happens in the United State Senate. For now I 
am going to keep the focus where it belongs. That is on this omnibus 
spending bill, which is a bipartisan accomplishment, which the 
President has urged that we pass, which I know many of my friends on 
the other side also favor.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker on 
our side, I think it is important to point out that, yeah, the 
Democrats do control the majority in the Senate, but a majority of 
Republicans right now are filibustering consideration of extending 
unemployment insurance, led by Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority 
leader.
  Maybe rather than waiting for them we can show some leadership here 
and demonstrate to these millions of Americans who have fallen on tough 
times that somebody cares; that we are not just going to let them just 
dangle and be without any kind of compensation during these difficult 
times; that we are going to step up to the plate and let them know that 
we understand that the economy is still going through hard times and 
that there is a need to extend this benefit.
  I don't know how we can just turn our backs on these people who are 
struggling. I mean, our job here is to help people, not to ignore their 
problems, not to turn a cold shoulder when they fall on difficult 
times. We all know we are emerging from one of the worst economic 
crises in our lifetime. These aren't normal times. So we ought to be 
there to provide some help. Let us show them a little compassion. I 
don't think that that is unreasonable. I don't care what your ideology 
is. We ought to not turn our backs on those who are unemployed in this 
country.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada, (Mr. 
Horsford).
  Mr. HORSFORD. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question, so we finally have a chance to bring up 
unemployment insurance, which is what the majority of Americans want us 
to be addressing at this time. It is completely insensitive, unjust, 
and flat out wrong that Congress would deny 1.4 million Americans 
unemployment insurance benefits, including over 19,000 Nevadans.
  This is the week that unemployment checks stop coming. This is the 
week where families will be faced with very unnecessary hardships and 
impossible choices. Why? Because this Congress fails to act. 
Republicans are holding unemployment benefits hostage, and it is 
completely hypocritical.
  On December 14, 2002, in his weekly radio address, then-President 
George W. Bush scolded Congress for failing to extend unemployment 
insurance benefits. He said: ``These Americans rely on their 
unemployment benefits to pay for their rent, to pay their food and 
other critical bills.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HORSFORD. ``They need our assistance in these difficult times, 
and we cannot let them down.''
  The unemployment rate then was 6 percent. It is much higher now. That 
Congress voted 416-4 to extend unemployment benefits, and under George 
W. Bush they did it five times. They didn't ask for one pay-for because 
it was important for the American public. It is time for us to do the 
right thing on behalf of 1.4 million Americans.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to remind my friends--and I have no 
doubt about my friend's compassion, I genuinely do not. We have had the 
opportunity to serve together on the Rules Committee. I would argue the 
compassionate thing to do here would be actually to start creating 
jobs.
  This recession ended in 2009. It has been a lot of years. We have 140 
pieces of legislation stacked up in the United States Senate waiting 
for the Senate to act on that we think would generate jobs, everything 
from Keystone pipeline to enhanced energy production. There is a 
disagreement, but I think if the Senate would act proactively we would 
actually do what I know we both want to do and create jobs.
  The other thing I would suggest, I have some sympathy with my friends 
on the other side of the rotunda in my party. They have not been 
allowed to present any of their ideas or any of their amendments on the 
floor. I think they would probably like to work with our friend in that 
regard, let's just see.
  Again, I would suggest today we should concentrate on the thing that 
we know we can do in a bipartisan fashion: pass an omnibus spending 
bill that will prevent a government shutdown and will provide a firm 
foundation for our economy that both sides and the President of the 
United States have agreed is the right thing to do for the country.
  You usually make progress one step at a time. It seems to me that is 
an important step and a step we ought to make today by passing the rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Oklahoma's comments, and I appreciate his expressing the frustration of 
the minority in the Senate not being able to express themselves, to be 
heard. I feel that same frustration here because we now have just 
completed a year in which I think that there have been more closed 
rules than any other time in history. So I think we all on the minority 
side here understand what it feels like to be shut out.

[[Page H250]]

  At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, the low level of funding in the 
omnibus bill for the Labor-HHS Subcommittee is far from meeting the 
needs of our country. Nevertheless I will support the bill because this 
compromised measure does make important improvements in health 
promotion, medical research, Head Start, and Job Corps.
  I commend Ranking Members Lowey, DeLauro, and their staff, who 
passionately fought to protect the programs decimated by sequestration. 
I am particularly grateful the bill fully funds STOP Act programs so we 
can continue the progress we have made against the public health crisis 
of underage drinking. I am pleased it funds newborn screening programs 
that save the lives of babies with genetic disorders.
  Madam Speaker, spending bills are a statement of our values and our 
priorities as Americans. Unfortunately, this bill falls short of truly 
reflecting those values in critically underfunded programs like Healthy 
Start and Hispanic-serving institutions.
  My hope is that our 2015 appropriations bill will, in fact, reflect 
our commitment to investing in a better future for all Americans, 
including the most vulnerable among us.

                              {time}  1330

  Far be it from me to debate too much about what goes on in the United 
States Senate, but I do think it is worth adding for the record that, 
since July of this year, Republicans in the Senate have been allowed to 
submit exactly four amendments. So I think we know who holds the 
world's record in terms of keeping the minority off the floor.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Simpson), my distinguished friend, colleague and former chairman on the 
Interior Committee and the new chairman of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Nunes) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McCarthy).
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for all your hard 
work in putting this bill together.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill includes funding for three 
environmental programs that have shown very little accountability since 
they were enacted, specifically, the Central Valley Project Improvement 
Act Restoration Fund, the CALFED Program, and the San Joaquin River 
Restoration Fund.
  I remain concerned about the expenditures in these programs and 
whether they are going to the intended purpose. I urge the committee to 
conduct an oversight hearing into these programs, and would urge you, 
Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could contact the Government Accountability 
Office to conduct a study of these programs run by the Bureau of 
Reclamation's Mid-Pacific region.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for 
your work, and I appreciate your willingness and the opportunity to 
bring accountability, as many of you know, to the challenge that we 
have in California and the devastation of the drought, but what is 
wreaking havoc throughout the Valley--which is the breadbasket--we find 
many times much of this money is not being held accountable and the 
lack of water that is not being supplied throughout California. We 
appreciate your work on this.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank both my friends from California for their 
attention to these issues. We have been discussing these issues with 
both of you and your concerns for some time now, and I look forward to 
exploring the issues further during a hearing and to working with the 
Government Accountability Office to provide further oversight on these 
programs.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield to our distinguished 
minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end 
the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits that protect 
25,092 people in my State of Maryland.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise the minority whip 
that the Chair understands that the gentleman from Oklahoma has not 
yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the unanimous consent request 
cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member 
Lowey for their hard work on this funding package and specifically 
their help in adding a first-time accountability provision to make our 
Federal Government more efficient and more effective. This 
accountability language will, for the first time, direct each agency 
head in preparing funding requests as part of the President's annual 
budget in consultation with the GAO to directly link the agency's 
performance plan and performance goals to such funding requests.
  It will require that performance measures examine outcome measures, 
output measures, efficiency measures, and customer service measures. 
This will provide the American taxpayer with results-oriented 
government.
  This first-time accountability language represents a real step 
forward for the integration of performance-based budgeting in 
government operations.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I am here to express my disappointment that we are not 
bringing up H.R. 3824, a bill that would extend for 3 months emergency 
unemployment compensation. It causes me to think of what the American 
people would expect of us here in Congress if we were facing a national 
emergency of some type that resulted in the immediate loss of basic 
support for the basic needs of 1.3 million Americans.
  What would we do, especially if that national emergency somehow 
caused every week 72,000 additional Americans to lose the basic help 
that they need to provide rent, to provide heat, put food on the 
table--to take care of the basic human necessities? We would act. Sure, 
as the gentleman pointed out, we would discuss ways to prevent future 
national emergencies that would cause this sort of problem. We would 
find ways to prevent those sorts of things from happening.
  The gentleman referred to job training, economic development programs 
like job training. We would do those things for sure. But in the 
meantime, we would--and today we should--act to restore those benefits.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I commend 
Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for their tremendous 
leadership in putting together this compromise budget.
  The bill is a step forward. It increases funding for many important 
priorities like housing authority operations and section 8. We have got 
an affordable-housing crisis in New York City, and these additional 
resources will help.
  The bill also makes important infrastructure investments. It fully 
funds the President's request of $14.6 million for the Second Avenue 
Subway in the district I represent and $215 million for the East Side 
access that will help create thousands of jobs in our Nation's largest 
city and is in the district of Mr. King and my district.
  I am also pleased to see that there isn't a single anti-woman rider 
that would threaten women's access to comprehensive health care.
  This bill isn't perfect, but it is a step forward. I had hoped it 
would include an extension of unemployment insurance and refund the 
cuts for the National Institutes of Health, but it is a vast 
improvement over the current budget, and I will be supporting it.

[[Page H251]]

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas 
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to bring up H.R. 3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend 
unemployment benefits that protect over 72,000 workers in Texas.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, in the last 18 days, nearly 1.5 million Americans have 
been cut off from their emergency unemployment benefits, and tens of 
thousands more Americans will lose their benefits every week without 
congressional action.
  Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that 2.3 million children 
live with a long-term unemployed parent, triple the number since the 
recession started in 2007; and losing unemployment benefits will be 
devastating to so many of these families. This is unconscionable. And 
what have my Republicans colleagues in the House done to address this 
issue? Nothing.
  Speaker Boehner's refusal to have a vote to extend emergency 
unemployment benefits is shortsighted, bad for our economy, and 
devastating for the 1.5 million Americans who have been cut off from 
this vital lifeline.
  Congress is set to adjourn in 24 hours; and instead of offering a 
solution to extend emergency unemployment benefits, this rule does not 
allow us to preserve this important assistance and ignores the serious 
needs of our constituents. It is outrageous that the House of 
Representatives would leave town again without taking action to renew 
this critical program to help struggling American families.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring 
this important legislative fix to the floor without delay to resolve 
this problem for our constituents.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I remind my friends on the other side of the 
aisle that supposedly we are in the 5th year of a recovery and that we 
have extended these extraordinary benefits for 5 years at the cost of 
hundreds of billions of dollars.
  Now, the Speaker has indicated that if our friends, either the 
administration, our friends on the other side of the aisle, or our 
friends in the Senate have an idea how to pay for this extension, he 
would give it due consideration. So far, it doesn't appear that such an 
idea has been forthcoming.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues that 
Republican President George Bush extended unemployment benefits on a 
number of occasions, never paid for it; and I don't recall my friends 
on the other side of the aisle raising a big to-do over that.
  But the bottom line is to simply say that, well, we have extended it 
multiple times, so tough luck to these people who are still struggling 
in this difficult economy is unacceptable. How can we do that? We are 
here to represent these people and to make sure that they have enough 
to get through these difficult times until the economy gets better so 
they can get a job.
  This should not be controversial. This shouldn't be a big deal. I am 
stunned that extending unemployment insurance to the unemployed in this 
country is a controversial issue. Only in this Republican-led House of 
Representatives are our priorities all messed up. Nobody talks about 
pay-fors for tax cuts for Donald Trump or subsidies to Big Oil or any 
special deals for corporate donors to the Republican National 
Committee. No one says a word about that. But when it comes to 
extending benefits to unemployed Americans, we are going to find pay-
fors.
  Well, do you know what? Let's take the initiative in this House to 
figure out how to get this thing done rather than leave town tomorrow 
and we don't come back for a week and a half and just leave these 
people hanging.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS. Madam Speaker, while I intend to support the omnibus 
appropriation bill, I wanted to voice my deep concern and 
disappointment that the omnibus appropriation bill fails to address the 
unemployment insurance issue, as well as it fails to address the rising 
flood insurance premiums facing millions of those who have been 
impacted by Superstorm Sandy.
  Rather than amend the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Act in a 
comprehensive way, the omnibus contains language that temporarily 
delays flood insurance premium increases for a year and for just a 
segment of policy owners. After that year, flood insurance premiums 
could continue to rise exponentially for newer policies. This is 
crippling our housing market recovery in areas like New York City, New 
Jersey, Connecticut, and others that were hard hit by Superstorm Sandy.
  Though this temporary delay may be better than nothing, it is not the 
certainty that the Nation's 5.5 million flood insurance owners deserve 
and need. Again, I call on Congress to bring up a comprehensive flood 
insurance reform legislation quickly in order to provide economic 
certainty to at-risk neighborhoods across our great country.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the chairman and 
ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee.
  Madam Speaker, I want to speak in support of the underlying matter, 
the appropriations bill. There is a lot that I could say, a lot of 
progress that we have made on a number of issues; but I want to, at 
this moment, talk in particular about the investments we are making in 
science and innovation.
  The World Economic Forum says that the American economy is an 
innovation-driven economy; and throughout this appropriations bill at 
NASA, at NIHS, in terms of our Federal laboratories and across our 
whole spectrum of activities including DARPA and others, we are making 
significant investments.
  I want to say that working with Chairman Wolf over the last three 
bills that we have moved through this floor and through the process, we 
have launched a high-priority research effort on neuroscience or brain 
research, and we have added to that each year. This bill is no 
exception. We have worked now in this legislation to internationalize 
this collaboration in important ways because the E.U. and others have 
launched similar initiatives in terms of understanding the complexities 
related to human brain diseases and disorders therein. So I thank the 
chair and the ranking member.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, could I inquire from my friend if he has any 
additional speakers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I do.
  Mr. COLE. In that case, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 
3824 to end the Republicans' refusal to extend unemployment benefits 
that protect over 26,000 workers in my State of Connecticut.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma has not yielded for that purpose. Therefore, the 
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I will be the last speaker on our side.
  Mr. COLE. I thank my friend.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, in a few moments, I will offer an amendment 
to the rule. The amendment is necessary due to a late request submitted 
by the administration to ensure that the fix for disabled military 
retirees works as it was intended. The amendment was fully vetted by 
the relevant House and Senate committees, majority and minority, and 
the administration. The

[[Page H252]]

Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that the change does not 
affect the cost of the bill. This amendment will ensure that we 
properly execute the agreed-upon compromise.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, just to kind of summarize here, my colleagues are 
being asked to vote on this, over 1,500 pages that nobody has read. And 
again, coming from the party that talked about reading the bill, I am a 
little surprised that they wanted to present it this way. But I am 
urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule simply because, under 
the process that we have before us, nobody has an opportunity to amend 
anything in this bill or change anything. I am willing to bet that in a 
week or so we are going to read an article about something that was in 
here that nobody even knew about, and if they did, they would have 
wanted it out of the bill. So I think the process that my Republican 
friends have utilized in this House of Representatives really is very 
disappointing--the number of closed rules, the way they have shut down 
debate, and even the way we have gotten to this point. So I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  At the end of the day, people are going to have to vote for this bill 
anyway because the alternative is shutting the government down or going 
back to the sequestration levels which my Republican friends embraced, 
which were unacceptable--so unacceptable they couldn't pass a 
Transportation appropriations bill on this House floor. They couldn't 
bring an HHS bill to this floor because the numbers were so 
unacceptably low that even their own Members couldn't deal with voting 
for a bill like that. As far as the underlying bill goes, I think the 
best that can be said about it is it begins to chip away at 
sequestration. The numbers are still awful, but the alternative is even 
worse.
  I would also urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so we can bring up a bill to extend unemployment insurance for 
those who are unemployed. I am fascinated by the debate on the other 
side of the aisle saying we are reluctant to do it because we have done 
it a number of times. That seems more important to my Republican 
colleagues than whether or not people are in need, whether or not it is 
necessary to extend these benefits to keep families afloat.
  Because Congress failed to act, more than 1.3 million struggling 
unemployed Americans were cut off from extended emergency unemployment 
benefits in the middle of the holidays. We all went home for Christmas, 
and the gift we gave to these struggling Americans was we cut off their 
unemployment compensation. Another 1.9 million Americans will lose this 
support in the first half of this year if we don't do anything.
  Too many families are still struggling to rebuild and regain what 
they had before the economic crisis. It is both unfair and devastating 
to cut off these benefits at the time of a 7.0 percent unemployment 
rate. We should not leave Washington tomorrow, on a Thursday, and go 
home for a week and a half and not address this issue. To blame the 
Senate, maybe it is an easy way to just kind of brush this off, but the 
bottom line is in the Senate, if you want to be of any help, talk to 
the minority leader who is leading a filibuster so that this can't be 
brought up over in the Senate.
  But that is no excuse for us in the House not to act. That is no 
excuse for us to turn our back on millions of Americans who desperately 
need our help. They are going through difficult times. Our job here is 
to help people, not just those who are well off, not just those who 
have super-PACs or who write out checks to campaigns. Our job is to 
help everybody, and that includes those who are the most vulnerable in 
this, those who are struggling during this difficult economy.
  Madam Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial that appeared in 
The New York Times, entitled, ``No Jobs, No Benefits, and Lousy Pay.'' 
I will also include for the Record an article, entitled, ``New Economic 
Analysis: $400 Million Drained from State Economies in Unemployment 
Benefits This Week Alone.''
  By not extending unemployment benefits, we are not only hurting these 
families who are unemployed, we are hurting our local economies. We are 
hurting the economy of this country. We need to get our priorities 
straight here. Our job is to stand up for those who are in need. On too 
many occasions, this Republican-led House has turned its back on those 
who are most vulnerable.
  So I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to vote 
``no'' on the previous question. This is our only opportunity before 
you go home on a recess to be able to deal with the issue of extending 
unemployment insurance. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can 
bring up the extension of unemployment compensation so we can help 
millions of families in this country who are desperately in need of 
help.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 10, 2014]

                  No Jobs, No Benefits, and Lousy Pay

                        (By The Editorial Board)

       There is nothing good to say about the December employment 
     report, which showed that only 74,000 jobs were added last 
     month. But dismal as it was, the report came at an opportune 
     political moment. The new numbers rebut the Republican 
     arguments that jobless benefits need not be renewed, and that 
     the current minimum wage is adequate. At the same time, they 
     underscore the need, only recently raised to the top of the 
     political agenda, to combat poverty and inequality.
       The report showed that average monthly job growth in 2013 
     was 182,000, basically unchanged from 2012. Even the decline 
     in the jobless rate last month, from 7 percent in November to 
     6.7 percent, was a sign of weakness: It mainly reflects a 
     shrinking labor force not new hiring as the share of workers 
     employed or looking for work fell to the lowest level since 
     1978. That's a tragic waste of human capital. It would be 
     comforting to ascribe the dwindling labor force mainly to 
     retirements or other longterm changes, but most of the 
     decline is due to weak job opportunities and weak labor 
     demand since the Great Recession.
       One result is that the share of jobless workers who have 
     been unemployed for six months or longer has remained 
     stubbornly high. In December, it was nearly 38 percent, still 
     higher by far than at any time before the Great Recession, in 
     records going back to 1948.
       And yet, nearly 1.3 million of those long-term unemployed 
     had their federal jobless benefits abruptly cut off at the 
     end of last year, after Republicans refused to renew the 
     federal unemployment program in the latest budget deal. Each 
     week the program is not reinstated, another 72,000 jobless 
     people who otherwise would have qualified for benefits will 
     find there is no longer a federal program to turn to. Worse, 
     in the Senate this week, after a show of willingness to 
     discuss renewing the benefits, Republicans objected to a bill 
     to do just that. They had demanded that a renewal be paid 
     for, but they didn't like how Democrats proposed to do that--
     with spending cuts at the end of the budget window in 2024 in 
     exchange for relief today.
       There was no need to pay for the benefits, which have such 
     a crucial and positive effect--on families, the economy and 
     poverty--that it would be sound to renew them even if the 
     government borrowed to do so. But Republicans would rather 
     criticize President Obama's handling of the economy than help 
     those left behind.
       A similar dynamic is developing around the drive for a 
     higher minimum wage. In the December jobs report, the average 
     hourly wage for most workers was $20.35. That means that the 
     minimum wage, at $7.25 an hour, is only one-third of the 
     average, rather than one-half, as was the case historically. 
     Raising the wage to $10.10 an hour, as Democrats have 
     proposed, would help to restore the historical relationship. 
     But even that would fall far short of the roughly $17 an hour 
     that workers at the bottom of the wage scale would be earning 
     if increased labor productivity were reflected in their pay, 
     rather than in corporate profits, executive compensation and 
     shareholder returns.
       Republicans, however, are opposed to any increase, as if 
     the numbers don't speak for themselves. Their stance also 
     dismisses research, and common sense, which says that raising 
     the wages of low- and moderate-income workers is essential 
     for lessening both poverty and inequality.
       Instead, in the past week, they have introduced ostensibly 
     ``antipoverty'' ideas, most prominently Senator Marco Rubio's 
     plan to transform federal safety net programs into state 
     block grants, another of the shopworn Republican ideas that 
     also include privatizing federal services and slashing 
     domestic spending. Block grants have allowed states to 
     disregard the needs of the least fortunate. The proposal 
     would set back the debate on wages, poverty and inequality.
       The December jobs report is telling Congress what it needs 
     to do. Unfortunately, that will not lead to action anytime 
     soon.

  New Economic Analysis: 400 Million Drained from State Economies in 
         Unemployment Benefits This Week Alone--January 3, 2014

       Washington.--The expiration of federal unemployment 
     insurance at the end of last week is already taking more than 
     400 million out of the pockets a SHARE of American job

[[Page H253]]

     seekers nationwide and state economies, according to a new 
     analysis by Ways and Means Committee Democrats. Unemployment 
     insurance is viewed as a very effective fiscal stimulus 
     because jobless Americans tend to spend their unemployment 
     insurance right away. The analysis spells out how much 
     federal funding each state is going without in the first week 
     since the emergency Federal Unemployment Compensation program 
     expired. In Illinois, nearly 82,000 people lost an average 
     313 weekly benefit for a total statewide economic impact of 
     25 million. In Ohio, more than 39,000 people lost an average 
     weekly benefit of 312 for a total statewide economic impact 
     of 12 million.
       At 11 a.m. this morning, Ways and Means Ranking Member 
     Sander Levin (0-MI) and Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) 
     will join former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and Harvard 
     economist Lawrence Katz in holding a press call to highlight 
     the harmful economic impact that will result if Republicans 
     in Congress don't agree to extend the program.
       ``In state after state, Americans who have lost their 
     federal unemployment insurance in one fell swoop last week 
     are struggling to get by,'' said Ways and Means Ranking 
     Member Levin. ``Every week that Republicans fail to act tens 
     of thousands of additional long-term unemployed Americans 
     lose this vital lifeline as they look to get back on their 
     feet after the worst recession in generations, and the 
     economy in each state is taking a hit.''
       Overall, failing to renew the EUC program will cost the 
     economy 200,000 jobs this year, according to the 
     Congressional Budget Office. Note that the below estimate is 
     conservative because it only takes into account the total 
     dollar amount provided per week by the now expired EUC 
     program. Economists generally multiply these estimates by 1.5 
     to 2 to show the true economic impact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Number of
                                   people who  Avg. weekly      Total
              State                   lost       benefit    benefit lost
                                    benefits       lost       this week
                                    Dec. 28
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK-.............................       4,300-      $247.61    $1,064,723
AL-.............................       12,036       206.21     2,481,944
AR-.............................       9,300-       286.11     2,660,823
AZ-.............................       17,100       219.06     3,745,926
CA-.............................      213,793       303.37    64,858,382
CO-.............................       20,237       359.12     7,267,511
CT-.............................       23,997       335.95     8,061,792
DC-.............................       4,600-       300.87     1,384,002
DE-.............................       3,600-       243.57       876,852
FL-.............................       73,000       231.20    16,877,600
GA-.............................       54,400       266.23    14,482,912
HI-.............................       1,900-       415.82       790,058
IA-.............................       4,300-       325.95     1,401,585
ID-.............................       2,600-       258.36       671,736
IL-.............................       81,867       312.77    25,605,542
IN-.............................       19,200       238.24     4,574,208
KS-.............................       4,400-       333.42     1,467,048
KY-.............................       18,000       288.60     5,194,800
LA-.............................       7,832-       205.80     1,611,826
MA-.............................       58,700       444.00    26,062,800
MD-.............................       22,900       326.30     7,472,270
ME-.............................       3,300-       284.84       939,972
MI-.............................       43,311       293.92    12,729,969
MN-.............................       9,231-       375.15     3,463,010
MO-.............................       21,329       235.04     5,013,168
MS-.............................       13,400       192.15     2,574,810
MT-.............................       1,876-       283.80       532,409
NC*-............................          NA-          NA-            NA
ND-.............................         300-       386.11       115,833
NE-.............................       1,200-       272.31       326,772
NH-.............................       1,004-       287.49       288,640
NJ-.............................       90,300       381.79    34,475,637
NM-.............................       6,000-       288.66     1,731,960
NV-.............................       17,600       306.90     5,401,440
NY-.............................      127,100       305.75    38,860,825
OH-.............................       39,100       311.82    12,192,162
OK-.............................       4,907-       294.62     1,445,700
OR-.............................       20,067       321.14     6,444,316
PA-.............................       73,330       343.31    25,174,922
PR-.............................       30,700       117.76     3,615,232
RI-.............................       4,900-       337.13     1,651,937
SC-.............................       15,400       248.29     3,823,666
SD-.............................          200       261.34        52,268
TN-.............................       19,500       236.07     4,603,365
TX-.............................       64,294       338.59    21,769,305
UT-.............................       2,500-       344.58       861,450
VA-.............................       9,700-       296.95     2,880,415
V1-.............................       1,300-       310.91       404,183
VT-.............................          600       298.13       178,878
WA-.............................       24,414       395.14     9,646,948
WI-.............................       23,700       266.09     6,306,333
WV-.............................       6,933-       271.37     1,881,408
WY-.............................         600-       371.36       222,816
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total-......................   1,336,158-       304.86   408,224,089
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Estimates exclude North Carolina, which ended its EUCO8 program in July
  2013. US Dept. of Labor, Office of Unemployment Insurance.


  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, I would again like to thank my friends 
Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for their efforts to bring an 
important product to this floor, a product which fulfills our 
constitutional responsibility of appropriating funds for the government 
for the fiscal year 2014.
  While this is not the bill I would have drafted, or I am sure that my 
friend would have drafted, I believe it strikes an appropriate balance 
between key Republican and Democratic priorities, and I believe it will 
attract the majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as 
well as the majority of my friends on my own side of the aisle.
  I want to thank my friend in the sense that, while we have had a 
contentious debate, we are actually going to be, on the underlying 
legislation, voting together. That may have been gotten lost in the 
debate. I will be voting with the majority of his colleagues and at the 
urging of the President of the United States. So we ought to recognize 
that, while we have had some partisan differences here, the legislation 
itself was crafted in a bipartisan manner. It was brought to this 
floor. I would agree with my friend, I would have preferred 12 
different bills and a lot more time, but we have a limited time frame 
here. It was brought in a cooperative manner. Both the ranking member 
and the chairman are urging its passage. It is something that we ought 
to take, frankly, some pride in and certainly congratulate those who 
had a hand in it.
  I want to also point out to my friend on the unemployment issue, here 
we probably do disagree. But the Speaker has made it apparent, if there 
are appropriate pay-fors, he is willing to consider that. Without 
questioning my friends on the other side of the rotunda, so far they 
simply have not provided that. I think the Speaker's offer has been out 
since before the end of the year, since before the benefits ended.
  It is also worth noting that this does not affect regular 
unemployment benefits. Those are still there for all Americans. This is 
a program which has been extended 5 years. We are now in a time when 
the recession is 4 years in the rearview mirror. Unemployment has been 
coming down. If it still needs to be extended for some people, we ought 
to find a way, in my view, to pay for it, and I think the Speaker has 
made it apparent that he would consider any serious proposal in that 
regard. So far, we haven't had that.
  Sometimes, Madam Speaker, the smart vote and the easy vote are the 
wrong vote. I know some of my friends on the other side might decide to 
vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. I never quibble with a rule 
vote. I respect that process because from their perspective there is a 
lot to criticize here. Certainly from my side of the aisle, there is a 
lot to criticize as well. We are going to have some ``no'' votes. But I 
think there is not much question that the right vote here is to vote 
for the underlying legislation, assuming that the rule is adopted, and 
I think it will be. I think it is the right thing for the country. I 
think it is the right thing for the process itself to actually get back 
to regular order, to consider the bills in the manner that I know my 
friend would like them to be considered in, and to have an open 
amendment process, which we do on appropriations legislation. This is 
an essential first step to doing that.
  I think that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey have probably 
done more in this legislation to restore the process and rebuild. They 
have given us a foundation for the next fiscal year that will allow us 
to do precisely the things that my friend would like to do and that I 
agree, in a normal process, ought to be done.
  So I would obviously urge support for the rule, but more importantly, 
after the rule passes, assuming it does, the underlying legislation so 
that we can work together in a bipartisan fashion; we can make sure 
that we have no government shutdowns next year. I think that will do 
more to create jobs and economic certainty than probably any single 
thing we could do.
  Our Appropriations Committee, working in a bipartisan fashion under 
the leadership of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, has done 
that. I would suggest that this probably is something that all of us 
should reflect upon, congratulate upon, and then try to spread 
throughout the institution. If we worked the way they worked in putting 
this bill together and bringing it to the floor on every other piece of 
legislation, I think the country would be well served; and, frankly, 
all of us would have a great deal to be proud of. With that, again, I 
urge the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 2, line 6, after ``Rules Committee Print 113-32'' 
     insert ``(as modified by section 6 of this resolution)''.
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 6.  The modification referred to in the first section 
     of this resolution is as follows: page 363, strike lines 12 
     through 16 and insert the following:
       ``(1) Combat-related special compensation.--Section 
     1413a(b)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       ``(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting `, with adjustment 
     under paragraph (2) of section 1401a(b) of this title to 
     which the member would have been entitled (but without

[[Page H254]]

     the application of paragraph (4) of such section),' after 
     `under any other provision of law'; and
       ``(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking `whichever is 
     applicable to the member.' and inserting `with adjustment 
     under paragraph (2) of section 1401a(b) of this title to 
     which the member would have been entitled (but without the 
     application of paragraph (4) of such section), whichever is 
     applicable to the member.'.''.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An amendment to H. Res. 458 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. 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. 
     3824) to provide for the extension of certain unemployment 
     benefits, 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 among and controlled by 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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3824 as specified in Section 6 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 
     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. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on adopting the amendment, if ordered, and adopting the 
resolution, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 195, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 19]

                               YEAS--228

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

                               NAYS--195

     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
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel

[[Page H255]]


     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
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Buchanan
     Cleaver
     Gabbard
     Hurt
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntyre
     Rush
     Stockman

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. VELA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HURT. Madam Speaker, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 19, 
on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 458. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 191, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 20]

                               AYES--230

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duckworth
     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
     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
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     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)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--191

     Andrews
     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
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brooks (AL)
     Buchanan
     Cleaver
     DeFazio
     Gabbard
     Jones
     McCarthy (NY)
     McIntyre
     Rogers (MI)
     Rush
     Stockman

                              {time}  1429

  Ms. SINEMA changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________