[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 16, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7541-H7549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 124, CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS 
                            RESOLUTION, 2015

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 722 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 722

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 124) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 
     2015, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted. The joint resolution, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the joint resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations; (2) the further amendment printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by 
     Representative McKeon of California or his designee, which 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, 
     shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable 
     for six hours equally divided and controlled by 
     Representative McKeon of California and Representative Smith 
     of Washington or their respective designees, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Section 4(c) of House Resolution 567 is amended by 
     adding the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(12) 
     of clause 4 of rule XI shall be considered to be written 
     rules adopted by the Select Committee as though pursuant to 
     such clause.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
my good 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. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
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. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 124, the Continuing 
Appropriations Resolution for fiscal year 2015. The rule is a 
structured rule which provides for the consideration of a short-term 
continuing resolution keeping the government funded until December 11, 
2014.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the adoption of a 
technical amendment by Chairman Rogers and makes in order an amendment 
by Chairman McKeon. That amendment provides the authority for the 
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to 
train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition 
and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups or individuals.
  For this amendment, the rule provides 6 hours of debate equally 
divided between Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith. The rule also 
provides for one motion to recommit.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule corrects a technical error and puts in 
place the base rules of the House regarding media access to the 
hearings and meetings of the Benghazi Select Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend Chairman Rogers for bringing 
a bill to avoid a government shutdown to the House. As a member of the 
Appropriations Committee, it is frustrating that we are forced into 
acting on a short-term continuing resolution when we spent much of this 
year, both in committee and on the floor, updating congressional 
funding priorities for fiscal year 2015.
  This House has done its work. I wish I could say the same for the 
other body. While the Senate has chosen not to pass even one 
appropriations bill on the floor, this House has passed seven.
  While the Senate Appropriations Committee has passed eight of the 12 
appropriations bills out of committee, the House Appropriations 
Committee has approved all but one. If the Senate would work with us, I 
believe we could pass all of our bills on time.
  The CR we are considering today is a clean bill continuing the 
funding of government operations at last year's levels. It includes 
only 36 so-called anomalies all within the total level of funding.
  These changes are necessary to address current immediate needs like 
addressing the Ebola crisis, funding programs to counter regional 
aggression toward Ukraine and other former Soviet Union countries, and 
funding to ensure appropriate treatment of veterans and continued 
oversight of the VA.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill extends the Export-Import Bank 
through June 30, 2015. I know some of my friends will disagree with me; 
however, I believe the Export-Import Bank provides a vital service. In 
an era when foreign governments are directly subsidizing industries, 
our companies are in need of a level playing field. I believe the 
Export-Import Bank does that.
  In my home State of Oklahoma, since 2007, financing provided by the 
Export-Import Bank has supported over $1.1 billion in sales by U.S. 
companies that would not have existed otherwise; in addition, the 
Export-Import Bank has returned over $2.6 billion to the United States 
Treasury since 2008.
  Finally, and most significantly, the McKeon amendment would provide 
the President with the authority he has requested to train and equip 
appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition. The amendment 
ensures congressional oversight by requiring detailed progress reports 
on a plan, a vetting process, and procedures for monitoring 
unauthorized end use of provided training and equipment. It would also 
require the President to report on how this authority fits within a 
larger regional strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, when we look back on what brought us to this point, 
there are at least three significant failures that we can point to: 
first, former Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki was given the opportunity 
to create a multiethnic, multisectarian, inclusive State of Iraq, but, 
instead, he squandered it; secondly, President Obama didn't insist 
forcefully enough to keep a residual American presence in Iraq; and, 
third, Mr. Speaker, when ISIL expanded out of Syria and into Iraq, both 
Prime Minister al-Maliki and President Obama were slow to respond.
  When Ramadi and Fallujah fell to ISIL, their indecisive leadership 
allowed and encouraged this terrorist organization to assert itself in 
the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, the salient discussion is not about the 
past and how we got here but about the future and what we must do now.
  I agree with the President that ISIL represents a clear and present 
danger

[[Page H7542]]

that must be dealt with, confronted, and destroyed. I am willing to 
give the President the authority and the funds needed to accomplish 
this mission. This amendment gives the President what he has requested 
while maintaining an appropriate role for Congress, but I do disagree 
with the President on several important issues.
  I don't believe that he has the inherent authority to use military 
force in Syria, and nothing in this amendment authorizes him to do so.
  I believe that going to war on the authorizations that were passed in 
2001 and 2002, which dealt with very different times, places, and 
peoples, is shaky, at best. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a vast majority of my 
colleagues, including myself, were not even here in Congress when those 
authorizations were approved.
  When we return in November, I hope that we repeal the 2001 and 2002 
authorizations and replace them with ones that reflect the views of 
this Congress not the Congress of the last decade.
  Additionally, I disagree with the President's choice of tactics. 
Regardless of whether he intends to use them or not, I believe the 
President was far too quick to rule out options and tools that he, in 
fact, may need later. War is the most unpredictable of all human 
enterprises. History shows that it is vital for a commander to maintain 
as much flexibility as possible.
  I also do not believe that the authority and resources the President 
has requested will be nearly enough to achieve the mission he has 
outlined. It is going to take far more from our country, our allies, 
and our friends on the ground to destroy ISIL than envisioned in this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the President can succeed in the effort 
to destroy ISIL without bipartisan, popular support, and I hope he will 
take this opportunity to build on that. We are not Republicans or 
Democrats in war, but Americans first. The Commander in Chief has asked 
for our support in the underlying legislation. He should get it.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the excellent 
Representative of Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when James Madison declared the Congress' ``power over 
the purse'' in the Federalist Papers as the most ``complete and 
effectual weapon,'' he warned of ``dishonorable stagnation.'' I fear we 
have achieved that. Rather than doing the hard work of coming up with 
long-term fiscal solutions for our Nation, we have resorted, once 
again, to short-term measures.
  In the 4 years since Republicans took control of the House, not a 
single regular appropriations bill has been signed into law; instead, 
we have had manufactured crises, brinksmanship, fiscal cliffs, near 
defaults on the national debt, massive omnibus bills, and government 
shutdowns.
  This continuing resolution may avert a national crisis in the short 
term by funding the government until December 11 of this year, but it 
is further demonstration the House majority has failed to do their most 
basic job.
  They have been so obsessed with suing the President, investigating 
the nonexistent scandal in Benghazi, and holding more than 50 votes to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act that they have not done the routine work 
of Congress, funding the government. It is clear that under the current 
House majority our ``power of the purse'' has turned into 
``dishonorable stagnation.''
  Not only has the House majority found new ways to procrastinate on 
finding long-term solutions, they insist on passing the most closed 
rules in a single Congress ever; in fact, just last week, they 
celebrated the 75th closed rule, which makes this their diamond 
jubilee. They continue to pass closed rules which stifle debate and 
impedes the work of this Chamber.
  Through this tactic, half of the country's Representatives have been 
silenced by the House majority. Even though Democrats received over a 
million more votes than Republicans did in the 2012 election, we are 
shut out. Our Nation's districts have been so gerrymandered, our 
representative democracy has been skewed beyond recognition.
  I also oppose the inclusion of section 2 in the continuing 
resolution. That provision, which further excuses the Select Committee 
on Benghazi from adopting written rules to govern its work, does not 
belong in a rule for a must-pass funding bill; rather, the Benghazi 
Select Committee, just like every other committee of the House, should 
be required to meet, debate, and vote in open session on its basic 
rules and procedures that will govern its work.
  The House majority previously tried to free the Benghazi Select 
Committee from this responsibility when it passed H. Res. 567 and 
established the committee last May. Four months later, they have 
realized on the eve of the select committee's first hearing that H. 
Res. 567 was not adequate; and so they inserted at the last minute a 
provision that, rather ironically, now excuses the select committee 
from the express requirement contained in clause 4 of rule XI for 
committees to adopt written rules to assure that meetings open to the 
public may be covered by audiovisual which means ``in conformity with 
acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, and decorum.''
  When H. Res. 567 was brought to the floor for a vote in May, 186 
Democrats voted against it. Let me reiterate that what this bill was 
doing is excusing the Benghazi Select Committee from having written 
rules like every other committee of the House is required to do. Not a 
single Republican joined us in voting against what we normally do.
  Many of us objected to the creation of the Benghazi Select Committee 
in the first place as an unnecessary and partisan pursuit. Seven 
different congressional committees issued nine separate reports that 
answer the key questions about what went wrong in Benghazi.
  Many of us believe that, to the extent any legitimate questions 
remain, the standing committees of jurisdiction along with Select 
Committees on Intelligence are fully capable of addressing those and 
overseeing the implementation of the needed reforms. It is unfortunate 
that not everyone seems to have the same confidence in the work of 
their colleagues.
  We also objected because H. Res. 567 skews the process by failing to 
equalize majority and minority representation and resources and by 
seeking to excuse the select committee from following the basic 
requirements that apply to other committees of the House.
  Basically, that says that we on the minority side have been shut out 
again. No guarantees and no discussion at all of fairness or openness 
either in resources, ability to see documents, or to call for 
witnesses.
  I offered an amendment to address many of these concerns, but the 
effort failed. After much debate about whether even to participate in 
the select committee's work, Democrat members of the House ultimately 
agreed to do so in the hope that Republicans would fulfill their 
promises of a bipartisan, fair, and transparent process.

                              {time}  1245

  Just as we were guaranteed an open process at the beginning of the 
term, we have been had yet once again.
  Inserting a last-minute provision in the rule on this must-pass 
funding bill will allow a select committee to avoid negotiating over or 
adopting the basic rules and procedures, and it does not honor the 
promise of openness. It will not win the public's trust. You cannot 
continually shut out half the Congress.
  The Benghazi Select Committee, like every other committee in the 
House, should be required to meet, debate, and vote in open session on 
the ground rules that will govern its investigation. What the CR does 
is fund the government, and the rule for it should not be a means for 
the House majority to change language governing the highly political 
Benghazi Select Committee.
  Programs and services all over the country cannot continue to run, as 
we are going to be asking them to do, on a month-to-month basis. They 
need certainty and reliability, which they clearly aren't getting.
  Instead of investing in emerging technologies or medical research, of 
which we used to be at the forefront, the majority lurches from stopgap 
to stopgap, and now that strategy has caught up with us. Running the 
United States Government in 3-month tranches is a true recipe for 
disaster.
  The CR does extend funding for operations of all Federal agencies, 
programs, and services until December 11

[[Page H7543]]

of this year and provides funding at the current annual rate of just 
over $1 trillion. However, it does include changes to existing law that 
are needed to prevent catastrophic, irreversible, or detrimental 
changes to government programs, specifically to address current 
national or global crises.
  Regarding Ukraine, the CR continues the current flexibility with the 
State Department and USAID to respond to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. 
Congress and the United States must continue to support the Ukrainian 
people in their fight for a free and democratic country. It is with 
some delight that we welcome Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to 
our Chamber later this week.
  The CR also increases funding to address the disability claims 
backlog at the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as to investigate 
claims about medical care. We all agree that when our troops come home 
they deserve the best medical care, and this increase in funding will 
help to ensure that we provide just that.
  Finally, regarding our involvement in confronting the rising threat 
to the Islamic State, or ISIL, while I am disappointed in the process 
that led to the continuing resolution, I do agree the House must debate 
at least one portion of the President's plan. We as Representatives 
need to debate if or how we arm rebel forces in Syria as well as other 
tactics in the broader effort. However, I have deep concerns about the 
ever-louder drumbeat toward war.
  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan claimed the lives of 6,640 of our 
men and women in uniform and critically wounded 50,450--50,450 come 
home to an already stressed VA system that cannot adequately care for 
them. The true cost of a war is not just in dollars, but in lives taken 
and destroyed, and I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the path 
before us.
  Mr. Speaker, with this continuing resolution, we have an opportunity 
to avoid a short-term crisis, but if we continue to postpone the 
fundamental work of Congress, the Nation's economy will be at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising I am going to disagree with my 
friend about who has and who hasn't done their job and who has been 
open and who hasn't been open in terms of how they have operated on the 
floor.
  The reality is this House majority has repeatedly brought 
appropriations bills to the floor and moved them across the floor. 
Unfortunately, our counterparts and the Democratic majority in the 
Senate have not been able to do that for whatever reason. It's a little 
hard to have an appropriations process when the United States Senate 
will not bring a single appropriations bill to the floor largely 
because the majority on that side is evidently afraid of voting on any 
sort of amendments to an appropriations bill.
  Now, if you actually look at the record in terms of who has been open 
and who hasn't, I remind my friends that the Democrats' 2006 manifesto, 
``A New Direction for America,'' states:

       Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure 
     that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full 
     amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer 
     its alternatives, including a substitute.

  The fact remains that when Democrats took control of the House they 
did just the opposite. Throughout the 111th Congress, in the final 2 
years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never 
considered a single bill under an open rule. That is the definition of 
a closed process.
  On the contrary, under Republican control, the House has returned to 
consideration of appropriation bills under an open process, with 22 
open rules. This year alone, the House has considered 404 amendments 
during the appropriations process, 189 of which were offered by our 
Democratic colleagues. Contrast that to the United States Senate, where 
that process has not happened at all.
  When you compare the record of the Republican majority to the most 
recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis will show Republicans are 
running a much more open, transparent House of Representatives.
  Let me also, if I may, Mr. Speaker, turn to the issue of the Benghazi 
Select Committee. I know that has caused considerable concern, I think, 
largely based on misunderstanding.
  Clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI, which applies to all standing committees 
and the select committees, mandates that the meetings of the select 
committee be open to the public, including the press, unless there is a 
vote conducted in open session to close such a meeting. The rule today 
only ensures that the logistics for media covering the hearing follow 
the standing rules of the House. There is no change to the rules 
governing public access to the meetings of the select committee.
  Might I, just for the Record, Mr. Speaker, actually read the relevant 
portion of the rules here--``(7) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) 
through (f)(12) of clause 4 of Rule XI shall be considered to be 
written rules adopted by the select committee as though pursuant to 
such clause''--essentially applying to the select committee our own 
rules. That is the only thing that is being done here. It is a 
technical amendment, certainly no effort to short-circuit the process 
or make it less transparent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I know we have had this debate before and this discussion before, 
blaming everything on the Senate, but the fact is we have not done our 
job here in the House.
  There were several appropriations bills that had committee approval, 
but none of us ever had the chance to vote for them. They were never 
brought to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a valued member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in 
opposition to the amendment on Syria that will be offered later today 
and voted on tomorrow.
  If it was a bad idea before to get involved in Syria's civil war, why 
is it now a good idea?
  Is it only because ISIL has expanded its operations over a fluid 
border into Iraq?
  How long will we support the Syrian Free Army?
  Who are these people?
  How much will it cost?
  What happens if and when our weapons fall into the wrong hands?
  What are the countries in the region offering in terms of substantive 
solutions?
  What is the clearly defined mission?
  How does this end?
  Do we have answers to any of these questions as we prepare to vote?
  We are talking about war, Mr. Speaker. When you drop bombs on people, 
that is war. And we can talk all we want about so-called boots on the 
ground, but unless some of our soldiers weren't given shoes, we already 
have boots on the ground. We need to be honest about that.
  We have trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers for over a decade. And 
for what? To watch them shed their uniforms and to turn their weapons 
over to ISIL? Is that what we are doing here again, Mr. Speaker?
  If the real purpose of U.S. military operations in Syria is to bring 
the killers of the two American journalists to justice, then perhaps 
good intelligence and a well-prepared Special Forces operation could do 
so, just like we hunted down Osama bin Laden.
  I want to be perfectly clear on one other point. Any amendment to 
provide title 10 authority to train and equip Syrian opposition forces 
must not be seen in any way as an authorization for U.S. Armed Forces 
to engage in hostilities in Iraq or Syria. It must not be seen as a 
substitute for specific congressional action.
  Authorization to carry out sustained military operations is not 
something that should be stuck into a conference report. There should 
be nothing backdoor about it. That would be an insult to our uniformed 
men and women, an insult to their families, an insult to this House, 
and an insult to the American people.
  On July 25, this House voted 370-40--370-40--in favor of my 
resolution to require specific congressional authorization for 
sustained combat operations by U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq. Yet,

[[Page H7544]]

since August 8, the U.S. Navy and Air Force have flown more than 2,700 
missions against the Islamic State in Iraq, including 156 airstrikes. 
These airstrikes have occurred almost daily over the past 6 weeks.
  Last week, the President announced that those operations will 
escalate and likely expand into Syria. This morning, they expanded to 
targets near Baghdad. If that doesn't qualify as sustained combat, Mr. 
Speaker, I don't know what does.
  So, if this House is serious about what it said in July, then we 
should demand a vote this month on congressional authorization for U.S. 
military operations in Iraq and Syria. Anything less would constitute 
yet another failure on the part of this House to carry out its 
constitutional duties. Anything less would make a mockery of that vote 
that this House took in July. But, if this leadership gets its way, we 
will leave Washington for nearly 2 months without such a vote, and I 
expect and I think we all expect that during that time U.S. combat 
operations in Iraq and Syria will expand and escalate.
  I know this is a hard vote. I know it is politically difficult. But 
we were not elected to duck the hard votes. We weren't elected to avoid 
difficult choices. War is a big deal. We need to do our jobs.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this rule, and I will vote 
``no'' on the Syria amendment.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I want to respectfully, once again, disagree with my friend 
from New York on the appropriations process. The reality is we have 
brought bill after bill to this floor. Every Member has had the 
opportunity to offer any amendment on seven different bills and to vote 
``yes'' or ``no'' on their final disposition. The Senate hasn't brought 
any. And, frankly, at some point the Senate's failure to do its job 
begins to impact our ability to do ours, because it is very difficult 
to get time on the floor and use it knowing there is not anything going 
on on the other side. And that is just the reality of it.
  So, if my friends can talk the Senate into beginning to move, I think 
they would actually find the House, which is already far ahead of them, 
would continue to work with them and we would actually begin to pass 
bills. But until the Senate will bring a bill to the floor of any kind 
for an appropriation, very difficult for us to get our work done over 
here.
  Now I want to address myself, if I may, to my friend and colleague on 
the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern. There is much in what he says that I 
agree with. Frankly, I think he is correct when he says that we need at 
some point a full authorization, a full debate, full discussion. He is 
absolutely right, and I want to commend him for the action he took in 
his amendment on Iraq in July that we voted on. I was very happy to 
vote it. So I think, in substance, I find very little to disagree with 
in what my friend has to say. I do point out a couple of things, 
though.
  First, and I think my friend is aware of it, the Speaker has actually 
taken the position that we need a full authorization debate and 
discussion. And I am told that he conveyed that to the President and 
actually said he thought this institution, our country, which I know is 
what we care about supremely, and the President himself would be better 
off under such discussion. That is a viewpoint that I agree with, and I 
think many Members on both sides of the aisle and with both points of 
view on the issue also hold that opinion. So this is actually a 
decision that has been largely made, in a sense, by the President.
  We are trying to respond in a short period of time to what the 
President has asked us to do, and I think that is an important point to 
remember in this. This is not a fight on this floor between Democrats 
and Republicans or even for proponents. I think it is, at another 
level, a difference in perception about what authority the President 
has, his view versus probably Congress' view on a bipartisan basis.

                              {time}  1300

  I think it is a challenge in terms of timing. It is extremely 
difficult for the leaders of either Chamber to look like they are 
undercutting the President at a time of danger and when he has come 
with this request. We have set 6 hours of debate aside for a reason. If 
you will remember, the President's original request was simply to drop 
this measure in the continuing resolution and have no vote and no 
discussion at all. It was actually our side and your side that insisted 
that it be pulled out and that a vote and discussion occur. When we 
come back--again, I share my friend's opinion--I would be prepared to 
do it before the election. I see no particular need in waiting, but I 
don't get to make that decision.
  At the end of the day, we are giving the Commander in Chief what he 
is asking for. I think we are trying to be both responsible and 
helpful. We have actually curtailed considerably what the President 
asked for. We noted specifically that this does not authorize the use 
of military force in Syria. We have required reviews. I suspect we will 
be revisiting this issue again--I certainly would hope so--and I look 
forward to working with my friend to make sure that we do.
  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my 
friend.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his 
words about his view that we ought to have a vote here in the Congress 
with regard to authorizing any kind of military operations in Iraq and 
Syria, and I appreciate his comments last night in the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what he is saying and I think what I am saying 
reflects the sentiment of most Democrats and Republicans. This is not a 
partisan issue. I think the gentleman is right in saying that the piece 
that we are voting on today has nothing to do with bombing Syria or 
with bombing in Iraq, but that continues, and that has escalated. My 
concern is that we may very well adjourn by the end of this week and 
not come back until after the elections, and that that involvement in 
both of those countries will have deepened, and we have not yet been 
promised that we will actually have that vote.
  I think Members on both sides would feel a little bit more relieved 
if, in fact, the Speaker would give us an ironclad promise that there 
will be a vote on an AUMF with regard to Iraq and Syria.
  Mr. COLE. In reclaiming my time, if I may, I don't presume to speak 
for the Speaker. I know that we have this vote largely because the 
Speaker wanted to make sure that we had a vote, and I know the request 
that he made of the President. Look, I am not condemning the President 
on this either. I understand all Executives try to tell you they have 
the authority to do everything they want. Ours do when we have a 
Republican, and Democrats do.
  All I can say is, at the end of the day, I think we have a robust 
debate, and we have an opportunity to register opinion. But I want to 
continue to work with my friend and make sure that we have precisely 
the kind of debate and discussion and vote that his own amendment in 
July actually envisioned, because I think my friend is correct. I think 
this is an issue of constitutional propriety, and I think it is an 
issue, ultimately, of war and peace, and I think we ought to all vote 
on it. I would be happy if we did it before the election, but I will 
work with my friend to make sure that we do it as quickly as possible.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds because I can't 
resist it, although I am so fond of Mr. Cole, but we can't really blame 
it on the Senate that we have not done our work over here.
  The House was able to find the time to vote 55 times to kill the 
health care bill, which is providing health insurance for 8 million 
Americans who didn't have it before. For goodness shakes, we could do 
that once a week, but we couldn't do the appropriations bills.
  Now I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlewoman.
  I want to thank the Speaker, and I want to thank Leader Pelosi for 
working together to give us an opportunity to vote on this question of 
developing a Free Syrian Army. Make no mistake: the decision that 
Congress will make on that question is of great importance because it 
is, in fact, a major escalation in U.S. involvement.

[[Page H7545]]

  Mr. Speaker, there is a collective revulsion at what ISIS did in the 
beheadings of two young Americans, and there is a good people here in 
this country, where parents saw the possibility of their own sons being 
in that circumstance, and everything in all of us wants to react to 
that.
  The question is: Is the prospect of creating a Free Syrian Army a 
good step at this time?
  The administration is briefing us. All of us are doing all of the 
consideration we can. We are going to have a debate on that. I want to 
ask some questions that I think are important for us to come to a 
conclusion.
  First, I want to compliment President Obama. He did use air power to 
stop the slaughter of the Yazidis. In that circumstance, he had ground 
forces, the Peshmerga, and a reliable ally in the Kurdish Government.
  Number two, the President was wise not to bomb when they were 
threatening Baghdad because he saw rightly that the problem was Mr. 
Maliki, who had created sectarian division and who had really undercut 
the capacity of his army by putting cronies in instead of good leaders.
  Then, third, the President has exercised great restraint about not 
having us be involved in the maelstrom of the Syrian civil war. That is 
a Sunni-Shia civil war that is out across the entire belt of Syria and 
Iraq.
  But what do we do?
  As for our allies who are in the region--Qatar, the United Arab 
Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt--what are they going to contribute when 
they are the principal objects of this threat? They have over 1,000 
planes among them, and they have armies. We haven't yet seen that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. WELCH. Second, the vetting process: How on a practical level will 
that work?
  We want the moderate Syrian rebels, but, in fact, we are going to be 
working with Egypt and with Saudi Arabia. They would nix Muslim 
Brotherhood participation. They want extreme folks who support the very 
conservative regime in Saudi Arabia. We are creating a very practical 
dilemma in the potential success of the so-called ``Free Syrian Army.''
  Finally, is the fundamental issue here one of military leadership or 
is it one of political reconciliation between Sunni and Shia? Is that a 
problem that can be solved by our military or is it a problem, ages 
old--centuries old--in that region, the conflict between Sunni and 
Shia?
  When I consider the contributions that the men and women of our Armed 
Forces made to Iraq, in which they threw out Saddam Hussein and gave 
stability and gave an opportunity for the people of that country to 
decide to live civilly together or in civil war forever, we gave them 
the chance they deserved.

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my good friend, a fellow member of the 
Appropriations Committee and a fellow subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Cole.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make three points about the continuing 
resolution.
  Number one, as an appropriator, I would be remiss in my duty if I did 
not say we do not like continuing resolutions, because we on the 
Appropriations Committee have worked hard to pass our bills. We passed 
seven off the House floor, and the Senate was unable to move one single 
bill and, as a result, shut down the appropriations process.
  The reason Members should be attuned to this is, during the 
appropriations process, you find out about a lot of programs that need 
to be discontinued, some that need to be modified, some that need to be 
enhanced, some that need to be limited altogether. We passed those 
bills on the House floor through a very vigorous amendment process, and 
that is a superior way to handle appropriations compared to the 
continuing resolution method, which just continues programs and really 
empowers more of the executive branch over the legislative branch.
  I believe that Chairman Rogers and Speaker Boehner have worked very 
hard to return this body to the regular order process of 12 different 
appropriations bills. We were well on our way to having that happen 
when the Harry Reid Senate shut down the process, and that is why we 
are here with the CR today. I am hopeful that we can go back into these 
bills and improve on the continuing resolution, and I do stand in 
support of it.
  Number two, let me say this about the bill. It has appropriate and 
important funding to take on the Ebola virus that has broken out in 
West Africa. This bill provides $88 million--$30 million for the CDC--
to put staffers on the ground and to address the needs there and then 
$58 million to the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development 
Authority, which is working on the possibility of 12 different vaccines 
for Ebola. They are not in the marketplace right now. We do not have a 
vaccine, and we need to do this research. That is why this amendment 
has been put in the continuing resolution, and it is something that all 
Members should be attuned to.
  I want to remind the Speaker that 2,500 people have already died 
because of Ebola and that the number who have been infected is 
somewhere between 3,800 and maybe as high as 4,500, or even higher than 
that. Getting the number, itself, is very difficult to do.
  Then, thirdly, let me say this about the use of force in the McKeon 
amendment that we are having, and I think Members do deserve to have a 
separate vote on this. It is important for the educational process. It 
is important for the discussion and the debate for the entire country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. KINGSTON. As I have looked at the 2001 and the 2002 
authorizations for military force, I believe that the President is 
probably right. I haven't come to a 100 percent conclusion on that, but 
I believe that he does have that authority. I think it would be far 
better off for everyone to have a separate vote, and I hope that we can 
have that happen sooner rather than later. But, in the meantime, this 
vote is very significant, and Members need not fool themselves that the 
McKeon amendment does help move this process forward.
  When we talk about airstrikes only and training only, and when we 
have made this decision not to have ground troops, we do not need 
another half-pregnant war in the Middle East. If it is important enough 
to fight, it is important enough to win, and we need to give the 
Commander in Chief all of the resources that he needs to have this 
victory. People often say airstrikes will get the job done, and they 
point to the NATO operation in Yugoslavia in 1999--1,000 aircraft, 
38,000 combat missions, 2,300 missiles--but the reality is that that 
war only ended when the President took the next step, and that was to 
commit ground troops. That is how important this is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. COLE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I want to be sure Members look back because that is the 
example where people say airstrikes alone are sufficient, when they 
point out the operation in Yugoslavia that was from March 24, 1999, to 
June 10. Even though we did not have ground troops, the Supreme Allied 
Commander in Europe, General Wesley Clark, said that he was convinced 
that the planning and preparation for ground intervention, in 
particular, pushed Milosevic to concede. We need to be very, very 
careful and mindful about this. If it is worth fighting, it is worth 
winning, and if it is something we are going to win, we need to give 
the Commander in Chief all of the tools that he needs to have a 
victory.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you.
  Mr. Speaker, the Middle Eastern tragedy in which this resolution will 
further entangle America is directly related to the wholly unnecessary 
Bush-Cheney invasion of Iraq. Having learned so little from the 
sacrifices of that conflict, the Congress now approves greater 
involvement in a Syrian civil war that has already taken almost 200,000 
lives.
  The administration has affirmed this very day that what it is talking 
about

[[Page H7546]]

is definitely a war, a declaration of war, while it seeks to avoid this 
Congress declaring that war, a Congress in which too many of the 
people's representatives fear making a decision today on whether to 
declare war.

                              {time}  1315

  Instead, we vote on an amendment here to authorize the administration 
to do what it is already doing in Jordan, while declining to consider a 
vote on what it should not do without specific congressional 
authorization.
  Reliance on resolutions approved by this Congress on this floor over 
a decade ago, in 2001 and 2002, is very instructive. First, it shows 
the dangers of open-ended authorizations. Resolutions such as the one 
we have today will not only govern the actions of President Obama but 
future Presidents as well.
  Second, once begun, this Congress, even under Democratic control, has 
shown little ability to contain war. Third, despite billions expended 
and with courageous Americans on the ground, the results over more than 
a decade of trying to successfully train Iraqis and Afghans is not 
particularly encouraging; indeed, the reality is the American taxpayers 
have been compelled to pay for the arms for our enemies as well as for 
our allies; nor do we have any explanation today as to how taking a few 
Syrians for training in Saudi Arabia--a country with its own brutal 
history of regular beheadings, financing extremists around the world, 
and opposing democracy most everywhere--how that will work better than 
our previous training on the ground with Americans.
  Rejecting the resolution today does not mean that we should do 
nothing. When Americans are brutally murdered, the President already 
has the necessary authority, which he should use forcefully, to go 
after these barbaric murderers. There is a significant difference 
between confronting the savagery of ISIS and initiating a multiyear war 
in the region.
  With the steadily growing number of U.S. military on the ground in 
Iraq now approaching 2,000 and recurrent demands from the same people 
that led us wrongly into Iraq in the first place that we add even more 
on the ground, the danger of escalation is very real.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Now, with our military leaders conceding that ISIS is a 
regional threat, it would kill as many Americans as it could--if it 
could--just as is true of some of the terrorist groups today in Africa; 
but, with it being a regional threat, not a threat to our homeland 
today, the question arises of why the countries in the region--who are 
more directly impacted from ISIS--why aren't they providing the bulk of 
the resources necessary to confront it?
  They are always content to have Americans kill as many of their 
enemies in their centuries-old conflict as we will kill. They would let 
the Americans do all of the bleeding and all of the paying for this 
conflict. A photo-op with 40 countries does not an army make.
  Ultimately, this resolution, like our previous unwise invasion, will 
make our families less secure, not more secure, and that should be the 
ultimate test of our actions.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just wanted to quickly note that I actually agree with a very good 
deal of what my friend from Texas has to say.
  I do want to correct him on one item. The amendment we are talking 
about is not like the authorizations of 2001 and 2002, mostly because 
it is very finely tailored to limit the executive branch.
  It actually runs out on December 11 or earlier if we actually pass a 
National Defense Authorization Act and deal with the Syrian issue in 
that context; so it is very limited in terms of time, very limited in 
terms of scope. It explicitly states that it does not authorize 
military action in Syria.
  With all due respect, I would suggest that most of my friend's 
disagreements are with this administration. They are largely 
disagreements with the President. The Speaker is doing what he can to 
provide an opportunity for us to debate and express that in the 
continuing resolution, and I will work with my friend from Texas to 
make sure that we have a fuller, more robust debate because I think the 
country deserves that, and I think my friend is right to demand it.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule that makes two changes: first, it 
would strike a special waiver for the Benghazi Select Committee that 
lets them avoid the transparent and deliberative process of debating 
and voting on their own written rules for media access, which every 
other committee has to do; second, we would bring up the bill 
introduced by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) to reauthorize 
the Export-Import Bank for 7 years, bringing certainty and stability to 
an agency that helps to create jobs in the United States.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) to 
discuss our proposal.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise to oppose the 
previous question so that I might, indeed, offer H.R. 4950 to 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 7 years instead of what the 
underlying continuing resolution would do, which would reauthorize it 
for 9 years.
  I do so for two reasons: number one, the argument of certainty--here 
is the truth: the fact of the matter is a 9-month extension of the 
Export-Import Bank is not certainty. Here is the truth: we are already 
losing business because of the cloud of the debate that hangs over this 
Chamber with respect to the continuation of the Export-Import Bank, and 
that is documented, I might add; so we need certainty.
  Everybody who comes from the private sector has made that argument on 
this floor. I come from the private sector. I make that argument.
  The truth of the matter is this: the number one advocate for 
eliminating the Export-Import Bank likes the idea of a 9-month 
extension because it plays into his hands of getting rid of it.
  Now, I take the gentleman from Oklahoma at his word. I know him to be 
a gentleman of honor and integrity, and I appreciate, deeply, his words 
in support of the Export-Import Bank, but the Export-Import Bank will 
be weakened with this language and will be subject to termination at 
the end of June 30 when it is isolated and left alone.
  One of the arguments that is offered for 9 months is to give time for 
an effort to develop a reform proposal. I know of one such effort 
underway by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), and he is 
operating in absolute good faith. There is no question in my mind. He 
is working hard to get there.
  There is equally no question in my mind that the effort to extend the 
Ex-Im, if we do it for 9 months, will be severely weakened, severely 
weakened. There is no assurance. There is no certainty that it will go 
beyond that date. We have a proposal that would do that, which has 201 
signatures on it as cosponsors, I might add.
  The second reason, the Export-Import Bank makes America stronger. It 
created 205,000 jobs last year. It reduced our Nation's deficit by $1 
billion in October when that amount of money was transferred to the 
U.S. Treasury. It creates jobs, and it creates good-paying jobs, 
manufacturing jobs. It enables America to compete in an increasingly 
global economy.
  Most people lose sight of the fact that, just since the year 1980, 
global trade has increased fivefold. I beseech the House: do not 
unilaterally disarm.
  Here is the truth: 59 other countries, virtually every developed 
nation on the face of the planet, has an export credit authority, and 
most of them are larger than ours, expressed either in terms of 
absolute dollars or percentage of their gross domestic product.
  For us to allow the Export-Import Bank to expire is to unilaterally 
disarm in an increasingly global trade-driven economy. For us to 
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 9 months is to tee it up for 
elimination, and you know this in your heart. You know this in your 
heart because the advocate for doing away with it thinks this is a good 
idea and has as much said that it tees it up for elimination.
  The Export-Import Bank is good for America. It makes America 
stronger.

[[Page H7547]]

It creates jobs. It creates good-paying jobs, and it enables us to 
compete in a global economy.
  I ask you to defeat the previous question so that we might offer a 
longer-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank my friend from Washington for his kind words. I 
couldn't agree more with him about the Export-Import Bank. I think it 
is a very important institution that ought to be reauthorized, and I 
intend to work with my friend to make sure that happens when the time 
comes.
  I don't think, as a rule, reauthorization in a continuing resolution 
is a good idea. I think it is much more appropriate, particularly for a 
matter this controversial and this serious--and, again, I agree with 
the substance of what my friend says--that we go through a normal 
committee process and that we come to the floor and have a full debate. 
I don't think this is the appropriate vehicle for that.
  While I look forward to working with my friend on the reauthorization 
of the Export-Import Bank, I doubt that it is going to happen in this 
particular vehicle so, hopefully, in the new Congress, as we make 
persuasive arguments, as my friend has advanced, we will find that we 
get the broad bipartisan support we need to do that reauthorization.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the majority's insistence on brinkmanship 
and short-term solutions threatens the Nation's economy, and regular 
appropriations bills have been replaced with fiscal cliffs, temporary 
stopgap measures, massive omnibus bills, and government shutdowns.
  It is far past time that this Chamber's majority party does the good 
work of government and works to provide stability to the American 
people.

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
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 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to 
defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I do want to revisit, in closing, this issue of appropriations and 
openness, and I want to remind my friends on the other side of some 
recent history.
  In 2010, when my Democratic colleagues controlled the House, they 
only considered two appropriations bills. At that time, by the way, 
they also had control of the Senate. I presume it would have been 
easier for them to have cooperated with a Democratic Senate than for 
us, but perhaps not because they only got two appropriations bills done 
the last year they were in the majority.
  My colleagues deviated from the longstanding practice of open rules 
for appropriations bills by making in order only 40 amendments that 
year. You heard that correctly. Democrats considered two of 12 bills, 
with only 40 amendments made in order.
  This year, Republicans have considered seven of 12 bills, considering 
404 amendments, 189 of them which were offered by my Democratic 
colleagues. I will let the American people decide who has the better 
record on actually bringing appropriations bills to the floor and 
opening them up for full consideration by this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all of those who spoke today for 
the sincerity and the thoughtfulness of the debate. I particularly know 
that we probably find ourselves on common ground in wanting to make 
sure the government doesn't shut down, pass a continuing resolution.
  It is interesting to me that that was not the subject of a great deal 
of contention; so I would hope that is something that brings us 
together. It is something that, certainly, the Speaker wants to 
accomplish, but the President and the majority leader want to 
accomplish that as well. Surely, we can find a bipartisan amendment for 
that.
  Obviously, the great issue of the day and this week is going to be 
this discussion over the Syrian matter, and, again, I want to 
congratulate my colleagues for the seriousness with which they are 
approaching this.
  I think we have all learned some very hard lessons in the last 13 
years, and I am pleased that the amendment that would bring to the 
floor--an amendment, by the way, the President didn't particularly 
want.
  I would recall for the Record that the President wanted this 
authorization for active title 10 authority for him to train Syrians to 
simply be dropped into the continuing resolution. It was the Speaker 
with the support of the Democratic leadership as well that wanted to 
make sure that we had a separate vote and discussion on this issue. I 
think that is a very good thing.
  Now, I agree with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I 
would prefer a much more robust and fuller discussion, and I hope we 
reach that point. I think that is exactly the course that the Speaker 
recommended to the President.

                              {time}  1330

  He said:

       I think the institution that I preside over will be better 
     served, I think you will be better served, and I think the 
     country will be better served if we have that debate.

  I know the Speaker made every effort to get to that point. Others 
have a different point of view. I respect the President. Like most 
Chief Executives, he has had to take some very expansive views of his 
authority under the Constitution.
  I recognize some people, frankly, are concerned about having this 
vote ahead of an election. Personally, I would prefer to do it ahead of 
an election, but I don't get to make those decisions, and I think the 
Speaker has done the best that he can do in reconciling all the 
conflicting opinions between the Senate, the House, and the executive 
branch and has managed to bring us at least something that is a serious 
debate and will be taken seriously by the country; moreover, I am 
particularly pleased that my chairman, Mr. Sessions, on the Rules 
Committee made sure that we will have not a cursory debate but 6 hours 
of debate.
  If any Member wants to voice their opinion, 6 hours is an awful lot 
of time. I suspect they are going to have the opportunity to come down 
here and do that, and I hope they will.
  I think what we are going to see is probably a bipartisan opposition 
to the amendment and bipartisan support. Frankly, in issues of war and 
peace, that is probably the better way for us to proceed; so I think it 
is a challenging situation. I think all concerned are trying to work 
together and do the right thing and to present clarity.
  I just want to go on record once again, personally, as hoping that as 
soon as possible that we come back--the President asked for broad 
authority--that we repeal the '01 and '02 resolution, something the 
President has asked us to do himself before, and work together and 
present a more precisely defined and limited resolution that gives him 
the authority to act robustly in the defense of our country, to punish 
people who commit the barbarous acts that we have seen in recent weeks, 
and to do the things that are necessary with the full bipartisan 
support of Congress to secure the security of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying resolution upholds the primary 
responsibility the American people have sent us here to do, ensuring 
the continued funding of the government. While not my first choice, 
passage of a continuing resolution is better than any of the 
alternatives; additionally, it provides the President the additional 
authority he has requested to degrade and destroy ISIL.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 722 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       Strike section 2 of the resolution and insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     4950) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United 
     States for 7 years, and for other purposes. The first

[[Page H7548]]

     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4950.
                                  ____


        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. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote ordering on the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and 
suspending the rules and passing S. 2154.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 188, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 498]

                               YEAS--224

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     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)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     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
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--188

     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
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     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, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     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
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz

[[Page H7549]]


     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bachmann
     Barton
     Bridenstine
     Capito
     Castor (FL)
     Crowley
     DeFazio
     DesJarlais
     Edwards
     Gutierrez
     Harris
     Holt
     Hunter
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Miller, Gary
     Nunnelee
     Pelosi
     Rush

                              {time}  1402

  Messrs. CICILLINE, SCHNEIDER, and ISRAEL changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 192, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 499]

                               YEAS--221

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

                               NAYS--192

     Amash
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gosar
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     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
     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--18

     Bachmann
     Barton
     Bridenstine
     Capito
     Castor (FL)
     Crowley
     DeFazio
     DesJarlais
     Edwards
     Harris
     Holt
     Hunter
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Miller, Gary
     Nunnelee
     Pelosi
     Rush

                              {time}  1412

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

                          ____________________