Head Start Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 371 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentlelady from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for the consideration of 10 different joint resolutions, all of which demonstrate House Republicans' continuing commitment to reopen necessary portions of our government.

The rule is a closed rule, which provides for 40 minutes of debate between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations for each joint resolution. Additionally, the rule provides for 40 minutes of debate between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for H.R. 3223, the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit for each bill or joint resolution.

Additionally, the rule extends same-day authority for resolutions reported by the Rules Committee through the legislative day of October 21, 2013, thus continuing to allow the House the flexibility to continue to address the government shutdown. Finally, the rule permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules until October 20.

Here we are again, Mr. Speaker--day four of a government shutdown. Unfortunately for the American people, not much has changed. The Senate is still recalcitrant, unwilling to consider legislation that would reopen parts of the government. I do want to add an exception, though, and thank our friends in the upper Chamber for actually agreeing with us to exempt our military from these cuts, both civilian and uniform. The Senate, however, is still unwilling to go to conference to discuss the very serious fiscal issues facing this country. The Senate is also unwilling to consider any of the five pieces of legislation the House passed in the last 2 days, which will reopen parts of our government. Even so, House Republicans continue to bring legislation to the floor to meet the needs of American citizens.

Today's rule will allow for the consideration of resolutions that reopen the Bureau of Indian Education, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, the WIC program, the National Weather Center, FEMA, our intelligence agencies, Impact Aid, Head Start--and the list goes on and on.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, this rule makes clear our commitment to the 800,000 Federal workers currently furloughed that they will, indeed, be paid. It is not their fault that Washington is dysfunctional in that Congress can't agree on the size and scope of government. Yet they are caught in the crossfire, wondering if they will be able to afford their mortgages and pay their utility bills. Mr. Speaker, that simply isn't fair. H.R. 3223, of which I am a proud cosponsor, would codify what we have done in every previous government shutdown: pay our Federal employees from the date on which the government shut down.

I particularly want to compliment in a bipartisan fashion our friends Mr. Moran and Mr. Wolf, who worked together on this measure, who brought it forward and gathered many dozens of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. Quite frankly, I think their example of bipartisanship and working together is something that we could all learn from.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats and Republicans alike agree that that's the responsible thing to do. House Republicans are working to deal with the real-world problems of our constituents. Republicans are working to reopen the government. However, we lack a willing partner in the Senate and in the President. Every time we have attempted to negotiate with them, they have told us to accept their plan. They have even rebuffed our attempts to go to conference. Therefore, House Republicans have been left with little choice except that of passing a number of smaller bills to see if the Senate would be willing to accept those. Again, I remark on one occasion, with respect to the military, that they

did, indeed, accept one, so I would urge them to do that with the others.

I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of points that my good friend raises; but before I do, I want to agree with her in that I think we all think the government ought to be open. I, actually, don't think there is much division about that, and folks have actually tried to do that. On our side of the aisle, every single piece of legislation we've brought to the floor during this period has either kept the government open in whole or in part, and I suspect we will continue to try and do that. So it's not the aim of either side here to shut down the government.

In terms of the Affordable Health Care Act, I certainly don't support it--I voted against it, and voted multiple times to repeal it and delay it--but I'll agree with my good friend on that, too, in the sense that there are times when we have actually worked together on both sides of the aisle to change it. My friends like to quite often mention there have been 41 or 42 efforts to repeal, delay, defund the bill; but they usually forget to add--and, quite frankly, some people on our side of the aisle forget to add--that seven of those have actually succeeded, that is, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President agreed with them.

The proposals that we have on the table now in terms of the Affordable Health Care Act are immanently sensible and overwhelmingly popular. To put it quite simply, we just don't think that political appointees and elected officials ought to be treated differently

than other Americans. Now, we can get into a big fight about health care; but the reality is, right now, under the law, Members of Congress and their staffs can bring subsidies with them onto the exchange. No other American can do that. We can do this either way as far as I'm concerned. I could leave them back as Federal employees, and they could be treated like every other Federal employee--that's the acceptable solution to me at least--or we could allow other Americans to bring subsidies onto the exchange just like Members of Congress; but the underlying principle is that we ought to treat them all the same. Washington political appointees shouldn't be treated differently than the average American.

The second thing is, I think, very simple. We're not talking about delaying all of ObamaCare; but if we are going to allow big businesses to wait a year before they implement what they're required to do--if we are going to allow 1,100 organizations and many labor unions to do it-- why shouldn't we allow the average American, at his choice, to delay it as well?

They don't want to delay. They can go onto the exchanges. The subsidies are still there. The tax programs are still there. Why shouldn't the average American have the same privilege that we've bestowed on Big Business, Big Labor, and countless organizations? That's what we're talking about.

To my friend's point here--and I suspect this is true of the debt ceiling a little bit further down the road--the Democratic approach is very simple: do everything I want, and then I'm willing to negotiate. We would like to sit down and talk now and see if we could find some common ground. We've got negotiators, conferees--the technical title-- available to sit down and find common ground. We're not asking for something that is unreasonable, in my view. We're certainly not proposing something that is outside the scope of the type of things we've been able to agree on before.

The President, I want to add, is taking the same approach that the Senate has taken with regard to the continuing resolution with the debt ceiling. He has just simply said we have to raise it unilaterally. That's not a particularly popular vote, probably on either side of the aisle. It's certainly not on my side of the aisle.

I'm willing to work with the President on the debt ceiling. I did it in 2011. And I want to note for the record, that is something he never did when he was a Member of the United States Senate. He didn't vote to raise the debt ceiling when he had the opportunity to do it. Instead, he engaged in a lecture about debt. It probably was a lecture that was needed. Regardless, he did not do for George Bush what he's asking us to do for him.

I'm willing to do that. I'm willing to work with him on the debt ceiling. If you voted for the Ryan budget, you envisioned the debt ceiling as being something that has to be raised while you deal with the underlying deficit. I do want to do something or be in a negotiation with the President about what to do on that deficit. I don't think that's an unreasonable position.

I think the real central issue in this is not the Affordable Care Act, not the debt ceiling, and, frankly, not even the government shutdown, as serious as that is. The real issue is whether my friends and the President of the United States will simply come to the table to negotiate. Will they put a counterproposal out there, or is it simply going to be: We insist in getting our way, in full, all the time? I don't think that's an acceptable way to arrive at common ground, and I don't think it's likely to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just a quick point. My friend is always quite eloquent, and I know, frankly, very passionate and very well-meaning and very expert when he talks about nutrition programs, where he spent a great deal of time.

For the record, it's worth noting that we have increased nutrition programs broadly by 400 percent since George Bush became President. We doubled them, roughly, when Bush was President. Doubled them again since President Obama has been in office. What the Republican program is talking about is a 5 percent cut after a 400 percent increase based on reforms. I think it's maybe not quite so dire.

Again, I recognize my friend's good work in this area and hope that we have an opportunity to get to conference, have that discussion. I suspect the bill, if it comes back, may be closer to his liking than the bill that went out.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, the rolls have been going up in a period we're supposed to be recovering. I think we have some genuine problems in this program in terms of reform. Again, that's the initial proposal. It's not out of bounds considering a 400 percent increase to have a 5 percent cutback. We'll wait and see what comes out of the conference committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the great State of Florida (Mr. Mica).

I yield my friend from Florida an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Kentucky, the Honorable Hal Rogers, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Certainly.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we schedule a conference, we go to conference, and we try to negotiate our differences.

If the gentleman will yield, no, Mr. Chairman, I do not. I would just highly recommend to my friends we do, since it seems to be a good way to resolve our differences.

Mr. Speaker, I have some good news I want to announce here just shortly.

But I want to note, for the record, my friends quite often make the point that they don't like a piecemeal approach. The reality is, if you look at actions, sometimes they do. They like it until they don't.

I would point out we had, of course, H.R. 3210 here, which funded the military, by our good friend from Colorado (Mr. Coffman). I think, in a very bipartisan way, we voted overwhelmingly on both sides to fund the military and most of the contracting and civilian employees.

There is a little disagreement with the administration about that right now, but that's half the discretionary budget taken care of in a ``piecemeal approach.''

Today the administration just announced, and I commend them for doing it, and I commend my friend because she announced she was going to be supportive of this too, and I think we all are. It was very evident in the Rules Committee, H.R. 3223, the Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act.

The administration's just announced that they're going to support that legislation. The President looks forward to signing it, and that's a bipartisan agreement between both sides and, frankly, a product of the work of our mutual good friends, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who found common ground and, in a piecemeal approach, moved us closer to a solution.

So I think that's maybe not the greatest news in the world, but on a day where there's not as much good as we would all like, some good news. And I would hope my friends would look at the individual pieces of legislation that are coming, where we mostly agree, and accept those.

We don't have to agree on everything, as the point's been made by several, to agree on some things. Those are areas that we do agree. And if we can fund our military in this fashion, and if we can make sure that our Federal employees are not going to lose any pay, retroactively, certainly, one step at a time, we can walk in the right direction and turn back on critical parts of our government. I hope that's what we're moving toward, Mr. Speaker.

So my friend knows, I'm quite prepared to close whenever she wishes to close.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my good friend from New York. She's always a terrific, frankly, counterpoint and debater, and we agree on some things. We both agree that the government shutdown's not a good thing.

Frankly, there's a strong bipartisan agreement. It's not something that either side wished to achieve, and it's something we ought to be working together, step by step, to try and undo; and, frankly, we've made a little bit of progress.

Again, the idea that it never works to work piecemeal, it certainly did with respect to the United States military, civilian defense force, and contractors. That's exactly what we did.

We passed something out of here; and the Senate, which said it wasn't going to agree to anything, magically did.

Now we're going to, hopefully, eventually pass H.R. 3223 out of here to guarantee back pay. I think most people on both sides of the aisle will support that. The President's indicated he'll sign it, which suggests to me that the Senate will probably take it up and move on it. So, voila.

Once again, just working through the process, we've found something that we can agree on. The differences here should not be so great that they can't be bridged.

Just to remind everyone of the history, we have placed multiple offers concerning the Affordable Care Act before the Senate. The last offer seems to me something that we ought to be able to agree on, or certainly be willing to sit down and discuss. It only has two points, and it's basically a question of fairness.

Why should Members of Congress and high appointees in the executive branch and our staffs go into the exchange and be able to bring subsidies with us, when no other American can do that?

It's just not fair.

Now, we could amend the law and let everybody come into the exchanges with subsidies. That would be fair. Or we could say, you know, really, Members of Congress and their staff are at a fundamental level employees of the Federal Government and they ought to be in that, and that would be fair. But let's treat everybody the same.

More fundamentally, currently, the President has unilaterally decided to exempt 1,100-plus organizations. He's unilaterally, in a questionable measure, constitutionally, decided to suspend parts of the law for a year and exempt Big Business.

We think, gosh, if you're going to do that, shouldn't every single American have the right to decide whether or not they want to participate in this for just 1 year until everybody is actually operating under the same system?

That too is a question of fairness. Give every individual American the same relief from a mandate that you're giving Big Business and Big Labor. It just seems to me commonsensical.

It doesn't mean you have to stop the exchanges.

You don't have to undo the program. Just treat everybody the same. Be fair. That's the Republican proposal in front of the Senate right now, and, frankly, I think they probably don't want to discuss it because it's a hard one to say ``no'' to because it's fundamentally fair. And that's all we've asked, is that the Senate, which has rejected it, at least come to conference and talk about it.

The real issue here beyond the questions of policy is whether the Senate is going to be allowed to dictate unilaterally what the House does. Is it just going to say, no, you've to do it our way? We're not going to negotiate. We're not going to go to conference. We're not going to deal with you. You have to do it our way. That's not the way the system was set up.

My friend, Chairman Rogers, pointed that out quite succinctly. We've got a way to handle this. It's called go to conference, argue, and work out the differences. And I suspect we're going to see the same thing a little bit down the road from the President, who's told us and told the Speaker this week, I'm not going to negotiate with you on raising the debt ceiling in the United States. You just have to do it unilaterally. You have to put the country further into debt without any discussion of what we can do to change the trajectory of that debt.

Now, that's a remarkable change from where he was in August of 2011. A remarkable change. He was in a very different place and position and was willing to sit down and talk. I don't know why he would change that now.

So I think we should do something in this bill to build on this piecemeal approach. We should pass these different measures. We agree these parts of government ought to be open; and we should continue to work through, conference with our friends in the Senate and ultimately in negotiation with the President of the United States on the debt ceiling.

And so I urge the adoption of this rule.

In closing, I'd like to, again, say that one of the basic functions of Congress is to fund government. This rule would allow 10 or more pieces of that government to open again to provide for crucial services that they provide. I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Unless the silent Members of the majority speak up, today's debate is a fait accompli.

For the last 2 days, Members of the majority have said publicly that they wish this government shutdown would end. In fact, a coalition of more than 218 Democrats and Republicans has publicly declared that it is ready to vote on the clean Senate CR. This 218 would be the majority, and we would pass it; and that's why the powerful minority, who has taken the government hostage, is doing all it can again today to prevent the Senate CR from coming to the House floor. It doesn't make any sense. Not only doesn't it make any sense; but, actually, were we to do that, we wouldn't have to be here today, trying to do these piecemeal pieces.

Last night, the Rules Committee proposed a rule for these 11 piecemeal funding bills before us today. They didn't go through a single meeting of a committee. At least, in the committee process, the subcommittees and committees would have given both Republicans and Democrats an opportunity to weigh in on these measures. Remember that half the population of the United States is represented by Democrats and that, in the last election, Democrat candidates for Congress achieved a million more votes than our Republican friends, but we are shut out of the process. Indeed, these bills were written yesterday afternoon and were brought straight to the Rules Committee, as so many are lately, in order to be rushed to the floor.

During our hearing, a colleague promised that the reckless approach would continue, even suggesting that we could see 150 more of these piecemeal bills before the majority agrees to end the government shutdown. That should take us to, maybe, October of next year. Yet, while they're willing to take 150 votes on bills the President would veto--and everybody knows the President would veto them--and the Senate would reject, they haven't allowed a single vote on the cure to the problem: bring up the CR, and put the government back to work.

Fortunately for the American people, no minority--no matter how powerful--can stop the will of the House if we exercise it. Unlike the Senate, a majority in the House can only be held back for so long. Thanks to the democratic spirit baked into our Chamber's rules, the majority will always succeed. For the more than 218 Members--a majority who has expressed a desire to vote on the clean CR--our most powerful tool is voting down the previous question and bringing the clean Senate CR to the floor to vote on.

Now, earlier this week, my Democrat colleagues and I urged the Chamber to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we could bring the Senate bill to the floor. Not a single Republican joined our cause. Today, we are going to give you another chance. Following the debate on the rule, we will have a chance to vote down the previous question. While that may simply be legislative language to most people, what that will do is give us an opportunity--those of us who very strongly believe this government should work--to bring the CR, bring the shutdown to a close and put everybody back to work. I want to see by the end of this day that we can accomplish that, because words are no longer enough. Those Members of the majority who claim that they want to end the government shutdown get the opportunity today to stand up and vote. As I said the other day when we had the same opportunity, I would like them to put their voting cards where their mouths are.

Over the next hour, I encourage every Member of this Chamber to reflect on the damage that has already been wrought on our Nation because of the shutdown and on the damage that will ensue if we wait another day. The shutdown is costing the Nation $300 million a day, and more than 800,000 workers are furloughed without pay. Today, we are going to vote--and, I think, almost unanimously--to pay them when the shutdown ends. A logical person would say, Why don't you bring them back to work? If they're going to be paid anyway, let them work. There is no answer for that. There must be some reason here that is available to only a few people as to why the majority wants to keep the government shut down.

We have to also end this because our State Department and intelligence employees need to go back on the job. A hurricane is bearing down right now on the State of Louisiana while 80 percent of the FEMA workers are furloughed. NASA had to turn off the Mars Rover, which was giving us so much information about the universe--stopping all the space exploration in its tracks.

I think one of the best things I've read to describe what we are doing in this House was said by a Republican. Because there is no plan here--there is no end game here--he is saying that what they are doing is laying the track ahead of the speeding train as it bears down on them.

The majority started the shutdown because they were dead set on repealing the Affordable Care Act; and I think, by doing this piecemeal, they think they can still do that. Throughout the process, they have issued dire predictions about the health care law and have warned that the law would hurt American workers. It is absolutely turning out not to be true.

In the last week, two of our Nation's biggest companies have responded to the Affordable Care Act by giving tens of thousands of their part-time employees full-time jobs. Guess who they are? One is the largest employer in the United States--Walmart. They are raising 35,000 of their part-time employees to become full-time employees in order to make them eligible for health insurance. Walt Disney announced that 427 employees at Disney World who have been hired as full-time employees will be given access to the health insurance plan. We also hear all the time--and I've really got to research this--that Delta Air Lines has said, they tell me, that the affordable care plan would cost them $100 million a year. I surely would like to know how that's possible unless they plan to hire 70 million new employees, which would certainly be good for employment, but I see no earthly reason for them to do that. We need to know whether that's true or not since all of the rest of the dire predictions have turned out not to be.

The Affordable Care Act is working; but because of the majority, the government is not, and it's time for the majority to give up this losing game. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on the underlying legislation; and, so importantly, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Then, Mr. Speaker, we can bring the clean Senate CR to the House floor, as we should have done weeks ago, and end this government shutdown today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm so pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), our incredible member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

My colleagues have confused the fact that they have gone around saying how, indeed, throughout August and all the rest of this time, that they don't want to shut down the House, in some hope, I guess, that nobody would understand that when they shut down the House, that they had actually done it.

Now what my colleague is talking about from the Democrat side, what they are saying, let's do what we agree with, they are taking their word for it that you didn't want to shut down the House. So let's not do it. You cannot superimpose that notion onto the idea of setting up this government by dribs and drabs. None of us are for that. The Senate won't do it. You know this is an exercise in futility. But pretty soon, the previous question is coming up. You are going to have a chance to do what you said you didn't want to do, shut down the House. But I understand from what you have said that because of health care, because of health care and what you think it has done to people in your district, you are holding this country hostage.

I don't have the time. My time has been given out.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am feeling quite badly. I didn't know how much time I had remaining.

I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), if he would like.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis) a member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that regular order has not been the order of business in this House for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I've only got one more speaker in the room, so I wanted to inform my colleague that, after Mr. Andrews, I may be prepared to close.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am absolutely going to vote to retroactively fund the Federal employees because that's the best I can do, on that one issue. It is a matter of basic fairness, but it is not good enough.

The fact is that the Federal employees will not get paid their retroactive money until after all this charade is over. We have no idea when that's going to be.

Let me reiterate again what all my colleagues have said: we can do it right now, put them back to work and let them get their paycheck.

I'm embarrassed every time I pass the Capitol Police at what's happening to them. It bothers me terribly to hear my friends at the State Department say that they're working on fumes.

We cannot run the Government of the United States, which is the beacon of democracy, has been the pattern for countries all over the world, by saying we're going to fund this piece over there and that piece over there, and we don't care what happens to the rest of it. That's not what we are here for.

Certainly, we will fund that one piece; but I can tell you right now, the Democrats are not going to do any of the rest of it because the Senate is not going to take it up and the President is not going to sign it.

We are simply wasting time, and we're taking up valuable time, and we are worrying the country half to death.

For heaven's sake, when we do this previous question, let us do the right thing. Vote ``no'' and get all these folks back to work.

Does it literally make sense to anybody who either manages a household or their own business that we would say to everybody, go home and rest around here or there; we'll pay you later when we decide you can come back, for not being here. That makes absolutely no sense.

Let them go back to work. We're going to pay them. Pay them now for the work they're doing. Pay concurrently with work.

Doesn't that make more sense?

Does it really make any sense at all that we're saying to them, we have no idea what the end game is here. You may be sitting around for a very long time, while the country pays $300 million a day of the cost of the shutdown.

For heaven's sake, I would say once again that we have to do this previous question today. We have to stop this nonsense. It is humiliating us. We cannot go on with this another week.

We're only here today to try to make it look like we're doing something because the government's shut down, and we know it. Those bills that we're voting on today had no committee action, nothing. The Senate has made perfectly clear they're not going to take them up. They will not become law, as every school child knows.

Now, those who vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question will be giving this Chamber what the leadership of the majority has not, and that will be the real chance to vote this down so that we can put the CR on the calendar and stop the shutdown now, today.

It doesn't have to go back to the Senate. The President's waiting for it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, I beg my colleagues, I do implore my colleagues, for goodness sakes, come to the floor, defeat the previous question. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.J. Res 84, Head Start for Low-Income Children Act. Head Start represents an innovative idea from a Democratic led Congress that was created for the education of our smallest citizens who come for poor or low income households.

We know that if these children have an early start in education it levels the playing field of life and they can have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Families in my district who rely on Federal Government programs like Head Start are hurting. The pain did not start with the shutdown, but with sequestration which hit Head Start programs for 3 to 4 year olds in the Houston Area hard: $5,341 million dollar cut, 109 employees cut, 699 slots for children cut.

On October 2, I joined hundreds of Head Start supporters from across the country and many of my colleagues to protest the closing of Head Start programs due to the Federal Government shutdown.

I picked up one of the tiny blue chairs that represented the thousands of Head Start children from around the nation and said that an empty Head Start chair represents a future doctor, engineer, president, or teacher who is at risk because of the Federal Government shutdown.

My support of Head Start and Early Head Start is based on what I have seen and heard about programs like the AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start program serving parents and children in the 18th Congressional District.

The AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start is a program serving low income families in my Houston Texas District.

I visited with AVANCE-Houston administrators earlier this month because I wanted to get an update on how low-income families with infants and toddlers and pregnant women served by the program were doing.

The AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start's mission is simple. AVANCE- Houston works for healthy prenatal outcomes for pregnant women, enhance the development of very young children, and promote healthy family functioning.

AVANCE-Houston serves nearly 1,800 children city wide. Each of these families and their children are suffering the effect of the legislative malpractice of the House majority.

The sequestration has cost Head Start and Early Head Start: AVANCE- Houston lost $842,518.

The impact to the AVANCE-Houston Head Start employees, teachers and administrators of the first wave of lost funds were: Furlough days, hiring freeze, extra workloads, morale level, outsource of custodial services.

In Houston, Head Start families and their children saw a reduction of days of operation; increase concerns about loss of services for their children and Hardy Center closure

AVANCE-Houston absorbed the sequestration reduction in federal funds by:

Reducing enrollment by 3.3% which ended access to the program for 72 children; Eliminating 11 Early Head Start and 9 Head Start Teachers and Support staff, and 12 custodial positions; and

AVANCE-Houston facing a Federal Government shutdown now must consider what it might mean to their future:

Possible loss of services for an already underserved population;

Increased costs of operation-Lease cost, building maintenance, medical insurance rates, unemployment, and worker's comp;

Maintenance of competitive salaries;

High staff turnover;

Limited dollars for new initiatives/curriculum.

I know many of my colleagues on the other side of aisle speak about reforming malpractice lawsuit rights of victims, but what the public is seeing in the legislative malpractice of my colleagues in the majority.

When there are no perceived consequences for bad behavior or harm caused to another there are no incentives to stop the bad behavior.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is legislative malpractice because it does not address the earlier cuts to Federal Government employees and programs caused by sequestration and makes worse an already bad financial situation for our government's most important assets--Federal workers.

The importance of Federal workers and the critical programs or services they administer like Head Start in our Congressional Districts cannot be understated.

The Houston Chronicle reported that due to sequestration it had already caused Head Start children and their parents pain.

This school year, a parent Marlen Rosas hoped her 3-year-old son, Hector, would be attending Head Start so that he might learn English.

Her modest hopes for her son were that he would eventually earn the high school diploma she never had the opportunity to earn.

But when Ms. Rosas went to enroll Hector--even though he met all the qualifications for the federal Head Start program--Hecter was turned down.

Ms. Rosas said, ``I'm sad because he wanted to go to school,'' Rosas said through an interpreter. ``He only speaks Spanish, and that would be one of the advantages: for him to socialize with those who speak English, while learning the names of colors and numbers--just to be learning.

A couple made a contribution of $10 million to open Head Start Programs in 11 states for 7,000 kids from low-income families could continue to receive educational services. I commend this couple for their generosity of heart to assist some of the Head Start Children impacted by this curl majority led Federal Government shutdown.

The legislative malpractice of representing to the American public that the Federal Government is comprised of dismembered parts that can be funded without regard for what one part does or how one agency contributes to the work of other agencies.

It is like building a car with no regard for what a part does and how it would function when installed--because the purpose of car is transportation.

The purpose of the House of Representatives is to fund the Federal Government--what we are doing will not accomplish the outcome.

Those who control the House of Representatives is making a cruel tragedy out of the budget process by teasing Federal employees who watch while the House majority toy with their lives by passing one funding bill at a time.

Mr. Speaker, the majority should stop playing games with the American public and pass the clean funding bill from the Senate that would fund the entire Federal Government including all programs immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.J. Res 84, Head Start for Low-Income Children Act. Head Start represents an innovative idea from a Democratic led Congress that was created for the education of our smallest citizens who come for poor or low income households.

We know that if these children have an early start in education it levels the playing field of life and they can have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Families in my district who rely on Federal Government programs like Head Start are hurting. The pain did not start with the shutdown, but with Sequestration which hit Head Start programs for 3 to 4 year olds in the Houston Area hard: $5,341 million Dollar cut; 109 Employees cut; 699 Slots for children cut.

On October 2, I joined hundreds of Head Start supporters from across the country and many of my colleagues to protest the closing of Head Start programs due to the Federal government shutdown.

I picked up one of the tiny blue chairs that represented the thousands of Head Start children from around the nation and said that an empty Head Start chair represents a future doctor, engineer, president, or teacher who is at risk because of the Federal Government shutdown.

My support of Head Start and Early Head Start is based on what I have seen and heard

about programs like the AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start program serving parents and children in the 18th Congressional District.

The AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start is a program serving low income families in my Houston Texas District.

I visited with AVANCE-Houston administrators earlier this month because I wanted to get an update on how low-income families with infants and toddlers and pregnant women served by the program were doing.

The AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start's mission is simple. AVANCE- Houston works for healthy prenatal outcomes for pregnant women, enhance the development of very young children, and promote healthy family functioning.

AVANCE-Houston serves nearly 1,800 children city wide. Each of these families and their children are suffering the effect of the legislative malpractice of the House majority.

The Sequestration has cost Head Start and Early Head Start: AVANCE- Houston lost $842,518.

The impact to the AVANCE-Houston Head Start employees, teachers and administrators of the first wave of lost funds were: furlough days; Hiring Freeze; Extra workloads; Morale level; Outsource of custodial services.

In Houston, Head Start families and their children saw a reduction of days of operation; increase concerns about loss of services for their children and Hardy Center closure.

AVANCE-Houston absorbed the Sequestration reduction in federal funds by: Reducing enrollment by 3.3 percent which ended access to the program for 72 children; Eliminating ii Early Head Start and 9 Head Start Teachers and Support staff; and 12 custodial positions.

AVANCE-Houston facing a Federal Government shutdown now must consider what it might mean to their future: Possible loss of services for an already underserved population; Increased costs of operation-Lease cost, building maintenance, medical insurance rates, unemployment, and worker's comp; Maintenance of competitive salaries; High staff turnover; Limited dollars for new initiatives/curriculum.

I know many of my colleagues on the other side of aisle speak about reforming malpractice lawsuit rights of victims, but what the public is seeing in the legislative malpractice of my colleagues in the majority.

When there are no perceived consequences for bad behavior or harm caused to another there are no incentives to stop the bad behavior.

Mr. Speaker this bill is legislative malpractice because it does not address the earlier cuts to Federal government employees and programs caused by Sequestration and makes worse an already bad financial situation for our government's most important assets--Federal workers.

The importance of Federal workers and the critical programs or services they administer like Head Start in our Congressional Districts cannot be understated.

The Houston Chronicle reported that due to sequestration had already caused Head Start children and their parents pain: This school year, a parent Marlen Rosas hoped her 3-year-old son, Hector, would be attending Head Start so that he might learn English; Her modest hopes for her son were that he would eventually earn the high school diploma she never had the opportunity to earn; But when Ms. Rosas went to enroll Hector--even though he met all the qualifications for the federal Head Start program--Hecter was turned down; Ms. Rosas said, ``I'm sad because he wanted to go to school,'' Rosas said through an interpreter. ``He only speaks Spanish, and that would be one of the advantages: for him to socialize with those who speak English, while learning the names of colors and numbers--just to be learning.

A couple made a contribution of $10 million to open Head Start Programs in 11 states for 7,000 kids from low-income families could continue to receive educational services. I commend this couple for their generosity of heart to assist some of the Head Start Children impacted by this curl majority led Federal Government Shutdown.

The legislative malpractice of representing to the American public that the Federal government is comprised of dismembered parts that can be funded without regard for what one part does or how one agency contributes to the work of other agencies.

It is like building a car with no regard for what a part does and how it would function when installed--because the purpose of car is transportation.

The purpose of the House of Representatives is to fund the federal government--what we are doing will not accomplish the outcome.

Those who control the House of Representatives is making a cruel tragedy out of the budget process by teasing federal employees who watch while the House majority toy with their lives by passing one funding bill at a time.

Mr. Speaker, the majority should stop playing games with the American public and pass the clean funding bill from the Senate that would fund the entire Federal government including all programs immediately.

Madam President, would it be possible--because Senator Casey and I were each thinking we would get 10 minutes and we are willing to cut that to 15 minutes between the two of us--could we ask unanimous consent, if the Republicans don't mind, just slipping a little bit, because people took extra time.

Thank you. So we will each have about 7\1/2\ minutes.

Madam President, we are going to fix the injustice my colleague spoke about--the injustice to the families who lost their loved ones. Let me be clear about one of those five families who were denied the benefit and someone important to me a constituent of mine-- Army 1LT Jennifer Moreno from San Diego, who was killed this weekend in Afghanistan by a roadside bomb. Jennifer was 25 years old. Because of this shutdown brought to us by the Republicans, those families have to suffer even more than they are already suffering.

Let's be clear. This never had to happen. This government has been shut down by the Republicans for one reason, and John Boehner was honest about it. He said:

The American people don't want to shut down the government,

but the American people don't want ObamaCare. They don't want

the Affordable Care Act.

Let me say that to close down the government because a person doesn't like a law that was passed almost 4 years ago, to shut down the government because a presidential election was lost and which was based, in large part, on this--to shut down the government, to keep our people--millions of them--from getting affordable care for the first time, it is a disgrace. It is. There is no other way to say it, except maybe it was said beautifully here. It was said beautifully here by the chaplain: ``Enough is enough.''

We are going to fix this problem; of course we are, this indignity our military families had to face. But let's be clear: It never would have happened if the government had been open.

We have two things that are in our job description. I know the Presiding Officer knows that quite well. One is to keep the doors of government open officially. We do our best, but we don't always succeed. There are problems here and there. Keep the doors open. Just as a pilot has to fly a plane, just like a teacher has to teach a class, just like a nurse has to give a vaccination, we have a basic responsibility to keep this government open, and we know how to do it. They pass a budget over in the House, we pass it in the Senate, the conference is called, they hammer it out, and we have a budget plan, and none of this would be happening. Let's be clear. The Republicans have objected now 21 times--21 times--to Senator Murray, the chairman of our Budget Committee, so she can sit and confer with her counterpart, Paul Ryan, and hammer out the details of a long-term budget. But, no. The Republicans don't want to do that. They want to hold the country hostage. They want to put our backs up against the wall, or the backs of the American people. Why? They don't like the health care law.

If a person doesn't like a law, that person tries to repeal it. They tried to repeal it 43 times. It went nowhere. If you don't like a law, try to replace the people who support the law. Oh, they tried. They tried and they failed. I served with five Presidents, three of them Republican. I didn't like everything they did; believe me. But after they won and they had an agenda, I did what I could, and so did my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to carry it out the best I could, to fix it where I could.

Let me just say this: We are in a shutdown because they are throwing a temper tantrum about the health care law, the Affordable Care Act. I wish to share some news with them, because I went home to see how the health care law is working in my State. I want to say what I know. I know it is working. By now we have had more than a million distinct visitors to our site, coveredCA.com. We have tens of thousands of applications. We have completed more than 20,000. Small businesses by the hundreds are coming on to the site.

In the time I have remaining, let me read to my colleagues about one woman the Republicans want to stop from getting health care by shutting down the government. According to the Associated Press, nothing could dissuade Rachel Mansfield of La Quinta, who sent in an application to Covered California last week. Rachel has been waiting for the exchange to start so she and her husband could get health insurance. Rachel is self-employed. Her parents currently pay a $530 monthly premium for her coverage. Her husband has been rejected for health coverage because he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Rachel's new premium, instead of it being $530 for just her, will be $400 for both of them, with higher quality coverage than she currently has.

That is why the Republicans are having a temper tantrum, to stop my constituent from, for the first time, having peace of mind and having good insurance? Come on. If you don't like the law, work with us. We can make it better.

Then there is Melissa Harris. According to the Fresno Bee, Melissa stopped at a CoveredCA tent on campus. She is paying $600 a month with help from her family for insurance through her former employer. She has diabetes and hypertension and, under the Affordable Care Act--which prevents insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions--she can now afford health insurance on her own. And the quote from her, from my constituent is, ``It's a Godsend for me--a blessing.''

It is a blessing. And that is why the Republicans are shutting down the government, to stop my constituent from getting a blessing of health insurance.

There was another story of a man who waited on the phone for 40 minutes, and he finally got on. He signed up and he said: You know what, I have been waiting for years. Forty minutes was nothing.

So I say to my friends, the law is the law. Open the government, pay our bills, and we will negotiate.

Mr. President, I yield the rest of the time to Senator Casey.

Reserving the right to object.

I appreciate the motion of my colleague, as someone who comes from a State where tourism is the No. 3--and we have 38 million people--it is the No. 3 business in our State. We have national parks. But guess what. You fellows over there, you did not take care of all of my recreation land under the Army Corps. You did not take care of all of the BLM land.

This whole notion of funding the government piecemeal is absurd. This is the greatest Nation on Earth. All you can do is come with these little, mini, piecemeal bills. Let's face it. We would not be going through any of this angst, and my friend would not have to have any of that emotion if the Republicans had not shut down the government.

I wish to state the rest of my reservation. We certainly support the notion that our parks should open, but we also support the notion that this government should open. If the Senators don't like certain functions, let's duke it out and find out which ones we have the votes to do away with. I know a lot of you don't like the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act. Fine, let's fight that out.

I see my colleague from Wyoming is here. He and I are constantly debating the issue of what should be a priority, but we don't do it this way. We need the entire Federal Government open. People need to get paid. The communities around the parks, around the

BLM land, around the Corps recreational lands, around our NASA Ames facility, and I could go on and on--they need to be paid because the mom-and-pop shops are suffering. We don't do government by piecemeal, not in the greatest Nation on Earth.

This reminds me of a woman who is drowning and someone goes to rescue her, but he only takes her halfway to the shore and leaves her to drown. This is what this is about. We don't say: I will save this child, but this one I don't have to save. I will save this community because I kind of like it, but this community, sorry. No one party has a right to do it, not the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party. We don't have the right to decide which kids live and which kids die, which families thrive and which sink, and which communities suffer and which communities don't. None should suffer, not in this Nation.

Open the government, pay our bills, and let's negotiate. Let's negotiate on everything.

I have a modification to suggest to the unanimous consent request, if I might.

I ask unanimous consent that the consent be modified as follows: That an amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the joint resolution, as amended, then be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. This amendment is the text that passed the Senate and is a clean continuing resolution for the entire government and is something that is already over in the House and reportedly has the support of a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives.

Reserving the right to object to the original request.

I feel I must respond. Senator Murray and I looked at each other and said: It feels as though it is ``Alice in Wonderland.''

Where were my colleagues 21 times when the chairman of the Budget Committee or her representatives asked to go to conference on the budget resolution, in which the conferees would negotiate how to fund the various parts of government, and that instruction would be sent to the appropriators? I do not understand what is happening here.

All we hear on the other side is negotiate, negotiate. They won't remember--selective memory, perhaps--that they objected 21 times to going to negotiations on the budget.

I have to say, this is the saddest display coming from the Republicans, who serve in the greatest legislative body in the world, to try to fund this government on a piecemeal basis, leaving some of our families winners and some of our families losers. It is pathetic, and they have caused this Republican shutdown. They can end it.

Because I feel my friend's narrow, piecemeal approach to running this country is very wrong for this country, I object.

I thank the gentlewoman from New York, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of the United States of America has now been closed for a full week. People are out of work. Some are even going hungry. Our economy is poised on the brink of a disastrous default, and yet this Republican majority continues to play political games with the future of our country and the lives and health of American families.

The hostage being negotiated today is Head Start, one of the true American success stories. Unquestionably, it is the most effective early childhood development program ever developed, and I've heard so often from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how unsuccessful the program is and what a terrible program it is and that we ought to cut it.

For almost 50 years now, Head Start has provided comprehensive childhood development, literacy, and family services to nearly 30 million preschoolers from low-income and working families. It now serves nearly 1 million children every year. It's an example of how dedicated teachers, with the help of a smart Federal investment, can enrich the lives of our citizens--the cornerstone of our efforts to close the achievement gap--combat poverty, and provide all kids with the opportunity to thrive.

It is another important Federal program that Republicans are claiming to support today in full defiance of their previous voting record. It is as if the majority expects that we have all forgotten the positions they have been promoting for years--up to this point. We have not forgotten.

I am the ranking member of the subcommittee that oversees Head Start funding, and I have had to continually fight tooth and nail to see this program adequately funded and to protect it from the deep cuts put forward by the majority.

In 2011, the very first bill the Republican majority passed tried to cut Head Start by over a billion dollars; and 218,000 kids would have been cut from the rolls, 16,000 classrooms closed, and 55,000 teachers, assistants, and staff would have lost their jobs.

That was the majority's opening offer, and they didn't blink an eye. Parent, teachers, and advocates stood up and said ``no'' to these cuts, and the majority had to back down.

Instead, what they're doing now would be automatic cuts, the across- the-board cuts known as sequestration, which was never meant to become law. They're using that to do their work for them. Because of those cuts, this majority has voted to make permanent that 57,000 students all across America have already lost access to Head Start. Even the children who are able to remain in Head Start can expect shortened school days, elimination of home visits, and teacher layoffs. In total, 78,000 children have lost access to this early learning since this House majority took office, and those sequester cuts will grow worse over time.

This is a self-inflicted government shutdown. Head Start centers are being forced to close. The longer the majority perpetuates this shutdown, the more kids are being denied an opportunity to learn.

I'm happy to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle embrace the importance of early childhood education. President Obama has called for universal preschool, which would make a profound and positive difference for children and their families across the country; but this Republican majority turned its back on that proposal, walked away from it, and didn't even consider it.

Let's stop playing games with people's lives, their health, and our children's future. It is little wonder that, according to the latest polls, a full 70 percent of the country opposes this hostage-taking and wants us to get back to work.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the subcommittee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the chairman of the full committee, the National Head Start Association has said--I'm commenting on this sham of a bill before the House today--that they are opposed to this effort because they realize that it is a charade. I think it's important to note that. They are certainly committed--and have been for years--in terms of early-learning education and education for our children, but they, too, understand what is happening here today.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, a quote from the National Head Start Association:

The proposed Head Start for Low-Income Children Act, while

attempting to provide a funding extension for Head Start,

does not put forward a true solution to the government

shutdown.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to read a headline from Connecticut's Hartford Courant: ``Head Start Memo: Nearly 1,000 Children Shut Out.''

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentlewoman.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me just comment for a moment in that I think that it is not a question of holding these children hostage. You are holding the entire Nation hostage for an effort that is not going to change, and that is: the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land.

Let's have a vote on this floor of the House of Representatives. We can reopen this government and not hold anyone hostage any longer.

If my memory serves me well, in 2011, the gentleman, whom I do have great respect for, voted for H.R. 1--and maybe it was his bill that he passed--which would have cut Head Start by over $1 billion.

It is puzzling to me that all of a sudden my Republican colleagues have gotten religion on the Head Start program. It is so inconsistent with where this majority has been with regard to Head Start and so disingenuous and duplicitous that we know it is a political ploy.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

I yield the gentlewoman 10 seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleague who just spoke, vote for it. Let's take the bill that was passed in the Senate, bring it here. There are apparently enough votes to reopen this government. Vote for it.

Why be afraid of the process? That's what we do here--we vote. Bring the bill here. Let's open it up and take our chances. What are we afraid of? What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that, in fact, some Republicans will join all of the Democrats to pass a bill that reopens the Federal Government and protects these children, protects our veterans, protects our workers, protects everyone? There is just a fear and a loathing here which I truly do not understand.

With regard to Head Start and other early childhood education programs, we know what those economic dividends are. It's about productivity; it's about prosperity; but it's about the quality of their lives and their futures. That's what ``Head Start'' means.

Given the record of this majority and its past actions in cutting funding over and over and over again for Head Start, it just proves how disingenuous this gimmick is here today. They're playing to the crowd, but the crowd isn't listening. No one will forget what you have done.

In fact, Head Start graduates are less likely to need special education services, to be left back a grade, or to get into trouble with the law. They're more likely to go on to college and to have a professional career. It is a program, yes, that works wonders, which is why we've all been surprised and dismayed by our Republicans and their attempts to slash this funding in the past.

May I ask the gentleman if he has any additional speakers or if he is going to close?

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am dismayed, but we are all dismayed. We have fought these battles on Head Start in the committee. As to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, who sits on the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, we fought over and over and over again in talking about how important this program is; and day after day after day after day, we have been told that the facts belie themselves, that this is not a successful program, that kids aren't learning. They have dug up studies from 20 years ago to tell us that this program doesn't work. All of a sudden, today, they think that there is merit in Head Start?

I hope this extends to what the President has asked for in universal early childhood education. Do you know that the Labor-HHS Subcommittee never even saw a markup, nor did they ever mention, with their draft proposal, early childhood education? They dismissed the President's view of early childhood education and providing universal early education for kids; and now, today, they stand before this body and this Nation and say they support this effort.

Let me just tell you, this is more of the reason why the hostage- taking by the majority has to end. Every day, we waste time with these gimmicks mortgages our kids' futures and our future as a Nation. It's not responsible governing, and it's time for it to end.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.