[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 64 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2671-H2684]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1732, REGULATORY INTEGRITY 
   PROTECTION ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE 
REPORT ON S. CON. RES. 11, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL 
YEAR 2016; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 43, DISAPPROVAL 
    OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH NON-DISCRIMINATION 
                         AMENDMENT ACT OF 2014

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 231 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 231

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1732) to preserve existing rights and 
     responsibilities

[[Page H2672]]

     with respect to waters of the United States, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill, it shall be in order 
     to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     114-13 modified by the amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments 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. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 11) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2016 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without 
     intervening motion except one hour of debate.
       Sec. 3.  Section 604(g) of the District of Columbia Home 
     Rule Act shall not apply in the case of the joint resolution 
     (H.J. Res. 43) disapproving the action of the District of 
     Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-
     Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014.
       Sec. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 43) disapproving the action of the District of Columbia 
     Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-
     Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014. All points of order 
     against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The 
     joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. 
     The joint resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or 
     their respective designees. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit (if otherwise in order).


                             point of order

  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against 
House Resolution 231 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of 
the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all 
points of order against consideration of H.R. 1732, which includes a 
waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a 
violation of section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New Jersey makes a 
point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, when I was sworn into this 
Congress, there was quite a bit of fanfare about how many women now 
serve in this body. But even with all of these women, this body is 
still 80 percent male.
  Men are running the show, and the sideshow that they have used to 
distract us from the real reasons each of us was elected has been a 
persistent, absurd, arrogant, and ignorant effort to impede upon a 
woman's right to make her own choices about her health.
  We have wasted--absolutely wasted--taxpayer dollars and valuable time 
here on the floor of the House again and again and again trying to 
legislate away something our highest Court confirmed years ago.
  We could have spent that time talking about the recent rash of police 
brutality cases that have long plagued communities of color, an issue 
that has now caught fire in the streets of Baltimore, just a few miles 
north of us.
  We could have discussed the lack of job training programs preparing 
workers for careers in technology and health, the fastest-growing 
professions in an economy doing nothing for the long-term unemployed.
  We could have used this time to work on protecting our seniors by 
expanding Social Security, keeping even more older Americans out of 
poverty.
  We could have debated any issue that would offer better opportunities 
for our constituents, which is what each of us was elected to do.
  Instead, we put Members of Congress one place we have no right to be; 
and that is, in a woman's uterus. Women are the only ones who have the 
right to make the inherently private health choices that they are faced 
with.
  Mr. Speaker, when the legislation we are preparing to debate came 
before the House Oversight Committee, I was particularly disturbed. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle gave us a slew of well-
meaning arguments about why we so desperately needed to violate the 
self-rule of the District of Columbia.
  One of these men, a former minister, explained employers, who are 
moved by faith to judge and persecute their employees, should be free 
to do so. He went on to say that employers should have every right to 
freely exercise their faiths and that the District's effort to ensure 
employees don't lose their jobs because of in vitro fertilization or 
birth control or any other reproductive healthcare choice was part of a 
``continued attack'' on religion.
  One thing that is particularly wonderful about this great Nation is 
that we offer everyone a right to have an opinion.
  As a mother, a grandmother, and a devoted woman of God, I couldn't 
help wondering how men, who are so very adamant about forcing mothers 
to have these babies, could refuse to ensure they have access to care.
  The same folks calling for bills like this one have called for cuts 
to programs across the spectrum that will give their children and their 
mothers access to education, access to healthy meals, and all kinds of 
tools to assure they are not stuck in the cycle of poverty. So once 
they have funneled women into the path that brings a child into the 
world, my colleagues would prefer to say, ``God bless you,'' and walk 
away.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation this rule would force us to consider is 
absolutely wrong. It violates the will of the District's voters; it 
violates the privacy and the rights of women; and most relevant to this 
point of order, it violates rules of this body for interference in 
State and local governments.
  It is now my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), someone who 
recognizes just how awful this legislation is and the only Member whose 
constituents will have to deal with the outcome.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend from New Jersey for her 
extraordinary remarks and for her generosity in yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule has the high stink of both unfairness and 
discrimination. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to 
overturn a valid local District of Columbia law but denied D.C.'s 
locally elected officials even the courtesy of defending that law, 
which is aimed at keeping employers from discriminating against women 
and men for their private reproductive health decisions, the most 
personal decisions Americans make off the job.

[[Page H2673]]

  Of critical importance, the D.C. local law requires that all 
employees carry out the mission of the organization or business, 
whatever its mission is. The disapproval resolution was only added to 
the Rules Committee agenda yesterday, literally at the same time that 
the committee began its meeting. And no member of the majority showed 
up at the hearing to defend the disapproval resolution until I noted 
this unprecedented absence. The committee then hurriedly summoned the 
subcommittee chair, who spoke without any prepared testimony.
  No wonder--how can any American defend an employer who imposes his 
religion or personal philosophical beliefs on an employee's private 
reproductive matters by sanctioning the employee because the employer 
disagrees, for example, with an employee's use of in vitro 
fertilization to become pregnant or of birth control for family 
planning?
  The employer has no right to even know about such private matters. 
But if he learns of an employee's reproductive preferences, the D.C. 
law requires that he must not use this private matter to discriminate 
on the job.
  Not surprisingly, we do not expect this disapproval resolution to be 
considered on the House floor--in the light of day--until late tonight, 
for fear that the American people will watch Congress sanction, for the 
first time ever, discrimination against women and men for their 
reproductive health decisions and see Republicans violate their own 
professed mantra for local control of local affairs by overturning the 
law of a local government for the first time in a quarter of a century.
  I thank my good friend for yielding.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the point 
of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the vice chairwoman of the 
Rules Committee in whose jurisdiction the unfunded mandate point of 
order resides.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding 
time.
  The question before the House is, Should the House now consider H. 
Res. 231? While the resolution waives all points of order against 
consideration of today's measures----


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery 
in contravention of the law and the rules of the House.
  The Sergeant at Arms will remove those persons responsible for the 
disturbance and restore order to the gallery.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina may proceed.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, while the resolution waives all points of 
order against consideration of today's measures, the Committee on Rules 
is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This 
is a dilatory tactic.
  These measures will protect our farmers, ranchers, and business 
community from a massive Federal overreach being perpetrated by the 
EPA, approve our FY16 budget that puts us on a path to rein in reckless 
spending, reform entitlement programs, and protect the religious rights 
of D.C. employers.
  As a mother, a woman, and an individual of prayer, I am very glad 
that we are here today defending life and our Constitution, consistent 
with our congressional prerogatives.
  Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle act shocked that we are 
debating this issue. But what is truly shocking is that we need to be 
here today at all, discussing whether to grant employers in the 
District of Columbia the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's 
First Amendment, but we are.
  I would further like to point out to our colleagues across the aisle 
some of the words of the second paragraph of the Declaration of 
Independence:
  ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created 
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted.''

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about discrimination against people 
here. We are discussing the protection of innocent life. As Members of 
Congress, we have a heightened responsibility to protect the rights of 
D.C. residents because the Constitution in article I, section 8 gives 
the Congress explicit jurisdiction over the country's seat of 
government.
  It is under that authority that we consider H.J. Res. 43, a 
resolution to disapprove the action of the Council of the District of 
Columbia in approving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act of 
2014, or RHNDA.
  Our country holds as its most fundamental freedom the right to 
practice freely one's religion and associate with others who hold the 
same beliefs. It is unthinkable that we could allow the leadership--if 
you want to call it leadership, the people in control of Our Capital 
City--to infringe on that right for the millions of Americans who live 
or work inside its borders. But that is what RHNDA does.
  It tells churches, religious schools, and advocacy organizations that 
they may not make employment decisions based on their own core 
principles, including the respect for precious unborn life, a principle 
that is central to many of these groups' entire belief system.
  Cloaked in language purporting to prohibit discrimination and promote 
tolerance, this law targets these organizations and tramples their 
rights to exercise their views on the respect for life.
  In truth, Mr. Speaker, this law discriminates against and promotes 
intolerance of anyone who disagrees with the world view of the majority 
of the D.C. City Council. It is not discriminatory for a church or 
religious school to believe and preach that life begins at conception. 
It is not discriminatory to practice these deeply held beliefs; that 
is, unless you are in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, this law may force religious organizations to relocate 
outside the District of Columbia in order to protect their rights. 
Given the clear hostility the City Council has shown them and what we 
have heard on this floor today, that may, in fact, be the ultimate 
goal.
  When we take our oath of office as Representatives, we promise to 
protect and defend the Constitution. That includes protection of 
religious freedoms, and it is why I support H.J. Res. 43 which 
disapproves RHNDA.
  In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for 
the day, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of 
consideration of the resolution.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 174, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 179]

                               YEAS--240

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie

[[Page H2674]]


     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--174

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Black
     Cardenas
     Clay
     Fudge
     Gohmert
     Hudson
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Kildee
     Langevin
     Lewis
     Payne
     Quigley
     Roskam
     Rush
     Shuster
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1312

  Ms. DeGETTE, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Ms. WILSON of Florida changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PALAZZO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                              {time}  1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland). The gentleman from 
Georgia is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, this is House Resolution 231 down here 
today. I have got a copy right here. It has been so long since the 
Reading Clerk read this to us that folks may have forgotten. This 
represents a lot of what I would argue is best about this institution, 
and I want to take a little pride and tell folks about what the Rules 
Committee has been working on.
  It makes in order H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act 
of 2015.
  As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the EPA and others are hard at work, I 
would argue, at trying to exert brand-new jurisdiction over waters 
currently regulated by the State of Georgia. It is the largest power 
grab over water I have seen in my lifetime and, I would argue, in the 
history of the Republic. This bill aims to roll that back. Yet, as the 
committee reported it, there are always other folks who have ideas, so 
what the Rules Committee did is to make in order every single 
Democratic amendment that was offered to this resolution.
  If we vote to support this rule today, we will consider this bill. 
The House will work its will, and it will work its will by considering 
every single Democratic alternative that was offered. I think that is 
an important step. It is going to make the legislation better when we 
move it to final passage, and I am glad this rule provides for that. I 
hope folks will support that underlying rule.
  Passing this rule today will make in order S. Con. Res. 11, the 
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016.
  Mr. Speaker, I almost feel like I need to explain what a concurrent 
resolution on the budget is because, if you are like more than half the 
Members of this House, you have never seen one before. More than half 
the Members of this House have never served when the United States of 
America got together and passed a budget. It is outrageous, Mr. 
Speaker. That was yesterday that it was outrageous, and today is about 
the opportunity to do this.
  The House worked its will on the budget. You will remember, Mr. 
Speaker, the Rules Committee made in order every single budget 
alternative that was offered, both Republican and Democrat. The House 
debated. The House worked its will. We passed a product. We worked that 
product out with the Senate. If we pass this rule today, Mr. Speaker, 
it will be in order to debate the first concurrent budget in my 
congressional tenure--these two terms--and the first balanced budget 
since 2001, but only if we make this rule in order.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, is H.J. Res. 43, disapproving the action of the 
District of Columbia Council, that this rule will make in order.
  Now, for folks who don't follow that, we don't see it that often. In 
fact, since Republicans first took over Congress for the first time in 
40 years back in 1994, we have never seen one of these resolutions 
before. It is the first one, but it comes from the District of Columbia 
Home Rule Act. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution delegates to 
Congress all of the authority for governing the District of Columbia. 
It is article I, section 8. All of the authority for the governing of 
the District of Columbia lies in this body.
  In 1974, we passed the D.C. Home Rule Act, which allowed for the 
coordinated governance of D.C., and it included this resolution of 
disapproval allowing Congress to come back and reject actions that the 
District of Columbia has taken. Again, folks will not have seen this 
unless you were in Congress in 1991 when Democrats were controlling the 
House and Democrats were controlling the Senate. Unless you were here 
then, you would not have seen one of these resolutions passed. It was 
last passed in 1991 with folks rejecting the deliberations of the D.C. 
Council.

[[Page H2675]]

  This rule makes in order the consideration of that joint resolution 
again today. It is exactly what was contemplated when, for the very 
first time in the history of the United States of America, the Congress 
delegated some of the power of controlling the District of Columbia to 
the city itself. In the language that designated that authority to 
begin with, it provided for this resolution of disapproval. For the 
first time in almost 20 years, this House is considering one of those 
today.

  That is what you get in this rule, Mr. Speaker. It provides for 
debate on all of the Democratic amendments offered; it provides for 
debate on those bills that are exactly as the D.C. Home Rule Act 
anticipated; and it provides for debate on the first conferenced budget 
that most Members in this House have ever seen. It is a shame this is 
the first time we have had an opportunity to do it, but, golly, is it 
exciting that we have an opportunity to do that together today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, 
which provides for the consideration of three unrelated pieces of 
legislation: a Republican budget conference report, an anti-Clean Water 
Act bill, and a resolution to interfere with the decisions of the 
District of Columbia's city council and a bill that limits women's 
reproductive health rights.
  The budget conference report was filed only minutes before the Rules 
Committee met yesterday, only minutes before the committee formally 
convened. It was a 100-page conference report that was negotiated in 
secret by the Republicans, and it was brought before the Rules 
Committee before anybody had a chance to read it. What ever happened to 
``read the bill''? Whatever happened to the pledge for a more open and 
transparent Congress? It would be nice if all Members, Democrats and 
Republicans, had the opportunity to carefully review the legislation 
they are asked to vote on, especially when it comes to a document that 
provides a blueprint for funding the Federal Government and reforming 
our social safety net programs.
  If that weren't bad enough, the majority claims that this budget 
conference report is something to be proud of. Mr. Speaker, this is 
nothing to be proud of. It is shameful. It is shameful in terms of 
process, and it is shameful in terms of substance. Budgets should be 
moral documents. They provide our constituents with a clear picture of 
who we are, of what our priorities are, how we should govern, where we 
want this country to go. They represent our values, but the values that 
this budget represents, I would argue, are not the values of working 
families in this country, and they are not the values of those who are 
struggling to get out of poverty. They may be the values of corporate 
special interests or of very wealthy individuals in this country, but 
they don't represent the values of the majority of people in this 
country.
  This partisan Republican budget takes us in the wrong direction. It 
cuts $5.5 trillion in funding through a series of unrealistic spending 
cuts, math magic, and gimmicks. It asks nothing of the wealthiest among 
us, proposes no elimination of special interest tax breaks, and 
continues us down the terribly misguided path created by sequestration. 
In fact, to be honest, Mr. Speaker, this budget basically provides us a 
pathway to do not a lot of anything, really.
  We already know that, unless we deal with the issue of sequestration, 
our colleagues in the United States Senate are going to block all of 
the appropriations bills. We know that the President will not sign any 
appropriations bills that lock us into sequestration. Maybe what we 
should be doing, rather than wasting time, is fixing sequestration, but 
my Republican friends have been very good at wasting time and at 
wasting taxpayer dollars, and that is what we are doing today.
  The Republican budget conference report proposes to end the Medicare 
guarantee and turn it into a voucher program. It turns Medicaid and 
CHIP into a capped block grant. It eliminates $85 million from Pell 
grants. It cuts investments in research and in infrastructure. The 
budget resolution builds upon the draconian $125 billion cut to SNAP, 
which is the Nation's premier antihunger program that was contained in 
the House budget. To achieve a cut of that magnitude by block granting 
the program and capping its allotment means that States will be forced 
to cut benefits or kick eligible individuals and families off the 
program.
  Boy, isn't that a nice value that we are promoting here--throwing 
poor people off of a food benefit. Just because the conference report 
is vague on some details or leaves out a few key buzzwords doesn't mean 
that it protects programs for the poor. Unfortunately, this Republican 
Congress has shown time and time again that it plans to balance the 
budgets on the backs of the poor and working class Americans.
  The conference report also includes reconciliation instructions to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act without proposing an alternative to 
ensure the 16 million people who have gained health coverage under the 
ACA are able to remain insured. That is right. If the Republicans get 
their way, being a woman is, once again, a preexisting condition, and 
preventative care goes away. Simply, the progress that we have made 
over the past few years disappears. Senior citizens will see their 
prescription costs increase. In budgetary terms, we will be worse off 
when repealing the Affordable Care Act because it will result in higher 
medical costs and sicker people. It is just that simple. It is a bad 
idea, but it is a good sound bite, I guess.
  Despite claims by my friends in the majority, this budget does not 
balance. It nowhere near balances. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is filled 
with gimmicks and contains the very dangerous addiction Congress has 
for deficit spending by further increasing funds for the overseas 
contingency operations account, or OCO. Not only does this budget 
increase the OCO's war spending, but it also facilitates using the OCO 
as a slush fund for items that should be funded in the base budget. 
Everything in OCO is on the national credit card. None of it is an 
emergency. It is deficit spending, pure and simple.
  I commend my colleagues on the Republican side who are raising a 
little hell about this kind of budget gimmick that is going on. This is 
outrageous. While we continue to pump up the deficit and to pump up the 
OCO account, we watch our roads and our bridges and our water systems 
crumble for lack of funding, and we starve our education and our job 
training and innovation programs.
  Mr. Speaker, those are just a few of the outrages contained in the 
Republican budget. We are still in the process of combing through the 
100-page document that was just filed yesterday, and I am sure there 
will be additional issues that we will want to raise.
  In addition to this awful budget, today's rule also provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 1732 and H.J. Res. 43.
  H.R. 1732, Mr. Speaker, would basically force the EPA and the Army 
Corps of Engineers to withdraw its proposed rule on Clean Water Act 
jurisdictional boundaries and start the rulemaking process over again 
from scratch. Mr. Speaker, the current rulemaking process should be 
allowed to move forward. The EPA and the Army Corps have painstakingly 
engaged in an extensive stakeholder outreach and public comment 
process. They are doing their jobs. The rule is grounded in sound 
science. H.R. 1732 would cause further confusion, and it would end up 
delaying essential clean water projects for future generations, not to 
mention, Mr. Speaker, that a rider in the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill, which is being considered by this House today, 
would prohibit the Army Corps from spending any money to propose a new 
rule.
  In one bill, my friends basically null and void what the bill we are 
going to debate today is intended to do. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am 
disappointed in this partisan approach that the majority has taken with 
regard to clean water legislation and environmental protection 
legislation.
  There is another bill in here, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to say a 
few

[[Page H2676]]

words about that. It is H.J. Res. 43, disapproving the District of 
Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-
Discrimination Amendment Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the D.C. Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act is 
scheduled to take effect this Saturday. The law passed unanimously by 
the D.C. City Council. This would protect employees who work in the 
District of Columbia from workplace discrimination based on their 
personal reproductive healthcare decisions. The bill is about basic 
fairness. People should be judged at work based on their performances, 
not on their personal, private reproductive healthcare decisions. But 
House Republicans cannot pass up an opportunity to meddle in personal 
reproductive decisions or in D.C.'s right to govern itself.
  The resolution before us, H.J. Res. 43, would prevent the law from 
going into effect. In doing so, it would allow an employer to fire a 
woman because she used in vitro fertilization or to demote an employee 
because she used birth control pills or because her husband used 
condoms or to pay an employee less because his daughter became pregnant 
out of wedlock.

                              {time}  1330

  In other words, we are a few months into 2015, a year-and-a-half away 
from the Presidential election, and the Republicans are already 
restarting their war on women. Sometimes it feels like this Congress is 
stuck in the mindset of 1815 rather than 2015.
  Let my colleagues make no mistake about this: H.J. Res. 43 is about 
legitimizing discrimination. Enough already.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier the gentlelady from North Carolina, my colleague 
on the Committee on Rules, came on the floor and said we in Congress 
need to protect the citizens of D.C. Protect them from what? From their 
own democratic process? Give me a break. Let me tell my Republican 
colleagues, the citizens of D.C. don't want your protection or your 
interference. They want this Congress to respect them and their 
decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, this is another lousy piece of legislation that really 
shouldn't be here on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the 
Record that the House should focus on America's priorities instead of 
resuming the attack on women's health.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California 
(Mrs. Torres) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement for the Record that the House should focus on the real 
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Michigan 
(Mrs. Dingell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real 
priorities of working men and women instead of another attack on 
women's health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California 
(Ms. Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement 
in the Record that the House should focus on real priorities like 
eliminating poverty instead of another attack on women's health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida 
(Ms. Wilson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert 
my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real 
priorities of America, like jobs, jobs, jobs, instead of another attack 
on women's health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California 
(Ms. Bass) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement 
in the Record that the House should focus on the real priorities of the 
country instead of another attack on women's health care in Washington, 
D.C.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida 
(Ms. Frankel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
insert my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the 
real priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's 
health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Roybal-Allard) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should focus on jobs and the 
economy, the real priorities of the American people, instead of another 
attack on women's health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Crowley) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record that the House should focus on the real 
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama 
(Ms. Sewell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert 
my statement into the Record that the House should focus on the real 
priorities of the American people instead of another attack on women's 
health.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Velazquez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real 
priorities of the American people--job creation and getting a stronger 
economy--rather than attacking women's health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Ms. Lujan Grisham) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request,


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will first make an announcement.
  The Chair would advise Members that although a unanimous consent 
request to insert remarks in debate may comprise a simple, declarative 
statement of the Member's attitude toward the pending measure, 
embellishments beyond that standard constitute debate and can become an 
imposition on the time of the Member who has yielded for that purpose.
  The Chair will entertain as many requests to insert as may be 
necessary to

[[Page H2677]]

accommodate Members, but the Chair also must ask Members to cooperate 
by confining such remarks to the proper form.
  The gentlewoman from New Mexico is recognized.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record that the House 
should focus on the real priorities of Americans instead of another 
attack on women's health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Maxine Waters) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to insert my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the 
real priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's 
health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
(Mrs. Watson Coleman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert 
my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real 
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to insert my statement into the Record, and the House should be 
focusing on the real priorities facing Americans: the economy. They 
should not be rolling back women's access to health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman will be charged.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real 
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real 
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms.  Judy Chu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to 
insert my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the 
real priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's 
health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Mrs. Lawrence) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement into the Record that the House should focus on real 
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Castor) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert 
my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real 
priorities of America instead of another attack on women's health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member on the Committee on Rules, for the 
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should focus on real priorities 
of Americans instead of another attack on women's health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my 
statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real 
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health 
care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Hahn) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement 
in the Record that the House should focus on the real priorities of 
Americans instead of another attack on women's health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Democratic leader, for the purpose of 
a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the 
House should focus on the real priorities of Americans instead of 
another attack on women's health care.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this point I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), one of our young leaders in this Chamber.
  Mrs. WAGNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for all the work 
that he has done to protect life and religious freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong disapproval of 
religious discrimination in the District of Columbia's local 
government.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the founding principles of our great country is 
the freedom to worship without government interference. Our forefathers 
fought and died for that liberty, and I stand before you today to make 
sure they did not die in vain.
  The law passed by the D.C. City Council attacks the core religious 
beliefs of faith-based organizations, schools, and pro-life advocates. 
Under this law, these groups could be forced to pay for health services 
that are in direct conflict with their fundamental religious beliefs. 
Under this law, a D.C.-based nonprofit whose sole mission is to end 
abortion could be forced to pay for abortion services. This is not only 
unacceptable but stands in direct opposition to the Constitution and 
Federal law.
  This is why I am proud to cosponsor Congresswoman Black's resolution 
that formally expresses Congress' disapproval of the D.C. pro-abortion 
law. I

[[Page H2678]]

stand here to defend the rights of religious institutions and pro-life 
companies to honor their faith and respect the sanctity of life.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that life is our greatest gift. I admire the 
work that many of these faith-based and pro-life organizations do to 
change the hearts and the minds in this abortion debate, and I will not 
stand idly by to watch their religious freedoms trampled. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same and vote in favor of this resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say for the record, I strongly disagree with 
what the gentlelady just said, and we will have some more time to talk 
about that, but I want to go to kind of a different subject right now.
  For those who are watching these proceedings, it may be a little 
confusing because we are jumping around to different subjects, but my 
Republican friends have this new kind of ploy to limit and stifle 
debate, and that is pack as many bills into one rule at a time so that 
you can limit the amount of participation and debate, which, again, 
runs contrary to what the people's House is supposed to be about.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to ask at the end of all this that we defeat the 
previous question, and then I will offer an amendment to the rule that 
would grant the House an opportunity to consider a budget that rejects 
the mindless sequester cuts in critical services and instead adopt a 
plan to put the budget on a fiscally responsible path by making 
responsible, targeted spending cuts, and by closing special interest 
tax breaks that benefit only the very wealthiest. It would make 
necessary investments to boost the economy and create jobs, protect 
national security, and preserve the Medicare guarantee.
  To discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, primarily because of 
the gimmickry and the coldheartedness of the conference budget. It is 
not just myself who has understood the tricks and gimmicks that were 
used to formulate this so-called balanced budget, which doesn't, of 
course, balance.
  It is kind of like if I had gone out and said I am going to spend 
$2,000 on a cheap racehorse. This is the weekend of the Kentucky Derby. 
I am going to go out and buy a cheap racehorse, and I am going to enter 
it in the Kentucky Derby. The horse is going to win the Kentucky Derby, 
and then I take that prize money from the Kentucky Derby--I might even 
be so bold as to predict it is going to win the Triple Crown, and I 
take all that money and put it in my budget as if I had actually done 
it. That is the way this budget was constructed.
  But, again, it is not just me. Virtually everyone who has looked at 
this budget--detached, impartial observers--says this is not legitimate 
budgeting. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted that 
the House budget uses ``several budget gimmicks that circumvent budget 
discipline,'' adding that ``the details are in some ways unrealistic 
and unspecified.''

                              {time}  1345

  The CRFB also observed about the Senate budget, ``Disappointingly, 
many of the savings are unrealistic or lack specificity.''
  Taxpayers for Common Sense said, ``This isn't budgeting, it's 
gimmickry.''
  The Fiscal Times noted that ``there is a widely held belief among 
many Federal budget watchers that Republicans had to resort to 
budgetary smoke and mirrors to create a pathway to a balanced budget.''
  While my friend from Georgia and other members of the Rules Committee 
and the Budget Committee are praising the fact that they were able to 
construct a budget that balances the first time since 2001, it doesn't 
balance.
  For instance, what it does is it eliminates, repeals--or calls for 
the repeal--of the Affordable Care Act and then takes all of the 
savings and revenues from the Affordable Care Act and counts that as a 
way to add $2 trillion to the positive side of their budget over 10 
years.
  That is not accurate budgeting. That is gimmickry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague.
  That is not legitimate budgeting. That is just fantasy. That is 
really what the budget is about.
  Unfortunately, though, there is a very cruel side to this budget. As 
my friend from Massachusetts said, this does real damage to the 
American people. It does damage to hard-working families who are trying 
to get ahead. It actually ends up being a tax increase on hard-working 
American families.
  It repeals the Affordable Care Act, and I just want to talk a little 
bit about what the Affordable Care Act has done in my State because, if 
this were to actually happen, here is what the impact on my citizens 
would be.
  In Kentucky, according to the DeLoitte professional services firm 
that did an audit of Kentucky's experience and a projection over the 
next 6 years, the Affordable Care Act will contribute $30 billion of 
additional economic activity in the State, create 44,000 jobs, and have 
a positive impact on the Kentucky State budget of $850 million. That is 
in one State.
  If you repeal the Affordable Care Act, not only do you do great 
damage to the health of Americans, taking insurance away from 16.5 
million--in my State, 550,000 who have gained insurance just in the 
last year and a half--but you are doing real damage to our education, 
to our infrastructure, to our investment in research, to our seniors. 
Under this bill, seniors will suffer a great financial hardship, as 
well as a loss of benefits.
  There is real damage, as I said, to be done with this budget, but I 
think the most disturbing part of the entire debate is the fact that 
this is not a budget that balances. Yes, the numbers at the end on the 
plus and negative side add up.
  They actually match after 10 years, but all of the bases for getting 
there is about as reliable as, again, if I bought that racehorse and 
said I am going to win the Kentucky Derby and counted those winnings 
before that race was ever run.
  I oppose the rule on the basis of this conference report on the 
budget. I think it does great damage to the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), a member of 
the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank my colleague for his leadership today 
and every day. I really appreciate that.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and, more broadly, H.J. 
Res. 43, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for her 
leadership and her conviction on this issue.
  We all want to protect the free speech and beliefs of all Americans, 
but too often, the line is drawn to discriminate against those with 
pro-life views. Ironically, this is often done under the guise of 
antidiscrimination, which is exactly what has happened in the District 
of Columbia.
  Under the recently passed ordinance, religious institutions and other 
pro-life employers in our Nation's Capital could be forced to make 
decisions that violate their deeply held religious beliefs.
  Despite the Supreme Court ruling in Hobby Lobby, for instance, under 
this ordinance, religious employers could be compelled to cover 
elective abortions in their healthcare coverage or face discrimination 
charges.
  It would also prevent faith-based employers from taking actions 
against employees who participate in activities that run counter to the 
mission of that organization. For instance, a pro-life crisis pregnancy 
center couldn't terminate an employee who undermines their cause by 
volunteering at an abortion clinic.
  As a strong pro-life individual myself, it boggles my mind that the 
government could force like-minded individuals to violate their 
conscience in such ways. Frankly, no American should be comfortable 
with such discrimination.

[[Page H2679]]

  We must take swift action to stop this ordinance, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this Nation is founded on two simple and powerful 
principles, liberty and equality.
  In the 18th century, our Founding Fathers saw liberty as freedom from 
the dictates of a tyrannical government and fought to the death to 
protect it. What they could not foresee is a modern form of tyranny, 
the tyranny of employers who seek to impose their beliefs on their 
employees and control their personal decisions.
  I am saddened that, today, my Republican colleagues are bringing up 
yet another bill to enable employers to control their private, personal 
decisions of their employees. Today, this body may, with a single vote, 
strip over 650,000 American citizens of their essential liberty to make 
their own choices about their health care and their families.
  Make no mistake, the District of Columbia's new law, the Reproductive 
Health Non-Discrimination Act, is about liberty. We are not talking 
about an employer who objects to paying for insurance that covers 
contraception.
  D.C. passed this law to protect the citizens from an employer who 
tells a woman that she will be fired for using contraception or for 
using in vitro fertilization to start a family or for engaging in any 
other conduct that violates the employer's religious beliefs.
  The D.C. law we are asked to overturn says your employer should not 
be able to impose his religious beliefs on you. You should not be fired 
because your religious beliefs differ from those of your employer. The 
D.C. law protects religious liberty. The disapproval resolution imposes 
religious coercion.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle who claim so 
vociferously to support freedom and liberty stand here today and say to 
the American people: you do not have the right to make decisions about 
when and how to start a family; your employer has the right to make 
those decisions for you.
  I challenge any Member of this body to go home this weekend and 
explain that to their constituents and why they must now live under the 
yoke of their employer's tyranny. The American people will not stand 
for it, and we must not stand for it today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the 
disapproval resolution. We must send a strong message to the American 
people that freedom and religious liberty still exist in this country.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a member 
of the class of 2010, and a public servant.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I appreciate my colleague from Georgia yielding me 
time to discuss this rule and the underlying issue.
  I do want to report that it was 229 years ago that the Virginia 
General Assembly ratified the Virginia statute for religious freedom. 
This was authored by Thomas Jefferson. The statute serves as the model 
for the free exercise clause in our First Amendment. This is what it 
said:

       No man shall . . . suffer on account of his religious 
     opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to 
     profess, and by argument, to maintain, their opinions in 
     matters of religion.

  Mr. Speaker, religious freedom is a fundamental human right protected 
by our First Amendment. It is essential to our free and flourishing 
society. Our Nation was found, in part, by individuals seeking refuge 
from religious persecution, from religious discrimination. For these 
pioneers and for all to come after, America was meant to be a permanent 
fortress of liberty and freedom for all who live within its walls.
  At its essence, the concept of religious freedom is about much more 
than religion. It is much more than just showing up to worship service 
1 day or 1 night a week. It is about our fundamental human right to 
hold our own beliefs and to live out our lives according to these 
faiths.
  Religious freedom, quite simply, is about freedom itself. This is why 
the very first part of the very First Amendment to our Constitution is 
about religious freedom. It is our first and most cherished liberty.
  However, our ability to be free to live out the convictions of our 
faith not only in the public square, but also in the privacy of our own 
homes, in our churches, in our businesses, is in jeopardy right here in 
our Nation's Capital.
  The misleading name RHNDA is nothing more than a legalized 
discrimination. If allowed to go in effect, the government would force 
pro-life organizations, pro-life ministries, pro-life business, pro-
life churches, pro-life individuals in the District to violate the very 
heart of their lives and their work and be coerced into paying for 
abortion on demand and be forced to hire antilife individuals who 
actually promote abortion. As a Catholic and as an American, I am 
offended by such coercion.
  Now is the time for Congress to stand up against this direct assault 
on our freedom of religion, our freedom of association, and our freedom 
of speech.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me and honor our constitutional 
oath of office by adopting this rule and passing H.J. Res. 43.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a member of the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend from Massachusetts for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the many Democrats who have rallied to 
the defense of reproductive health decisions of men and women in the 
District of Columbia, especially since this is a resolution to overturn 
a District of Columbia law that everyone in this Chamber will be able 
to vote on, except me.
  I wish to respond to a set of untruths you have heard from the other 
side that, for example, the D.C. law is an assault on religion. On the 
contrary, it protects an employer's religious beliefs. He can hold 
those religious beliefs if that is part of what his organization does. 
The employee must advocate those beliefs. Whatever the organization or 
business, the employee must advocate the employer's views, not his own. 
What the employer cannot do is to go into the employee's bedroom to 
find out what kind of reproductive choices he makes on his own as a 
private matter.
  Abortion has been raised as if it were in this bill. In fact, just 
the opposite--the D.C. law makes it clear that insurance is not 
involved, paying for abortion is not involved.
  Republicans have done almost the inconceivable. They have resumed, 
with this disapproval resolution, the war on women, by adding men.
  The D.C. law protects all employees from job discrimination by the 
employer for their reproductive health choices. For example, if the 
employer discriminates against a male employee who has contributed 
sperm for in vitro fertilization to help his wife become pregnant, that 
male employee is also protected.
  There has been an attempt to tie the D.C. law to abortion; but, if an 
employee refuses to carry out--indeed, to advocate--the mission of the 
organization that opposes abortion, then that employee can be fired.
  In fact, you can ask that employee before that employee is hired: 
Will you advocate vigorously against abortion the way this organization 
does? That employee must say yes, or that employee may not insist on 
any right to be hired.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the manager of this bill 
never defended the bill on the merits; instead, he defended the tyranny 
of Federal power over local matters.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. NORTON. The Home Rule Act, in its terms, Mr. Speaker, does not--
and it says so--envision overturning local law, and it says so in its 
terms. There are only a few matters that the Home Rule Act mentions 
that cannot be enacted, and the matter on the floor is not one of them.
  Republicans have been champions for federalism and local control; yet 
they are trying to impose their own preferences on a local jurisdiction 
whose Member cannot even vote for or against it. This is a double 
whammy.
  Their goal here is to resume the war on women. The predicate for 
getting to

[[Page H2680]]

the Nation's women is the D.C. Home Rule Act. It goes after D.C.'s 
right to self-government and women at the same time.
  The coming attraction in your district is that this bill or a version 
of it is pending all over the country. Stop it here, or it will spread 
throughout the United States of America.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my great pleasure to 
yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the 
vice chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague from Georgia for 
the great leadership he shows in the Rules Committee and on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made 
many comments. Some of them, I am going to do my best to refute comment 
by comment; others, I am just going to talk about in general.
  Their one charge is that Congress should stay out of the business of 
governing D.C. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives 
Congress explicit jurisdiction over the country's seat of government. 
The extent to which Congress should oversee or intervene in the 
governance of the District is a debate for another day, but it is 
clearly our responsibility.
  Current law compels congressional oversight, and we must exercise 
responsibly that jurisdiction. That includes acting to stop legislation 
that clearly violates the constitutional freedoms of the citizens of 
the District.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that women are protected by law, 
both Federal and D.C., from discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. 
Their personal medical decisions are also private under HIPAA 
protections.
  This discussion is not about how someone chooses to conduct their 
personal affairs. It is about whether the D.C. government may force an 
organization to hire, retain, and promote someone who actively opposes 
their central mission and core beliefs.
  Pro-life groups, religious organizations, and Republicans, are not 
the only ones to see significant problems with RHNDA. Even former D.C. 
Mayor Vincent Gray cautioned that RHNDA goes too far, and called the 
bill ``legally insufficient'' and ``legally problematic.''
  Whatever his position may be on life issues, he recognized that the 
approach taken by the City Council does not adequately protect free 
exercise. He further noted that the measure ``raises serious concerns 
under the Constitution and under the Religions Freedom Restoration 
Act.''
  The District's own attorney general also expressed concerns that 
``religious organizations, religiously affiliated organizations, 
religiously-driven for-profit entities, and political organizations may 
have strong First Amendment and RFRA grounds for challenging the law's 
applicability to them.''
  The D.C. Council's cavalier attitude toward the constitutional rights 
protecting religious practice and belief is deeply troubling. 
Unfortunately, RHNDA is a harbinger of continued efforts to undermine 
the right of free exercise and association.
  RHNDA denies these fundamental rights to pro-life organizations and 
religious groups who do not fit the narrow definition of ``ministers'' 
exempted from the D.C. law. Under this law, these organizations can be 
forced to hire, retain, and promote individuals who work actively 
against their central mission and core beliefs.
  The clear and shameless targeting of these organizations must be 
opposed by anyone who values the rights guaranteed to us by the First 
Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, our oath of office requires us to preserve, protect, and 
defend the Constitution of the United States.
  The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2012 that religious 
organizations have the right to hire individuals that support their 
mission, saying: ``The interest of society in the enforcement of 
employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so, 
too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach 
their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission . . . The 
church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.''
  Consistent with our oath of office, I commend this rule and 
disapproval resolution for our support.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), a member of the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is 
extreme, and it is an outrage to women everywhere. The Republican 
majority is saying with this resolution that they think a woman's 
employer has a say in the woman's reproductive healthcare choices, even 
though the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and women all across this 
country know that they don't.
  It is bad enough that the majority party believes your boss should 
dictate whether your healthcare plan covers birth control. Now they 
want to make sure your boss has the right to fire you just for using 
birth control.
  If that was all they were saying, that is outrageous enough, but it 
is not. This resolution would actually give employers the right to fire 
an employee for the reproductive healthcare choices of their spouses, 
or even their children.
  Think about it. The other side is saying that it is all right to fire 
someone because their boss doesn't like their wife's, or even their 
children's, healthcare choices. Talk about restricting someone's 
rights.
  It would take away a whole range of women's private decisions and 
make them fireable offenses. In vitro fertilization, you are fired. 
Exercising your right to choose, you are fired. You have a daughter on 
birth control, you are fired.
  This is outrageous, ridiculous, and totally unacceptable. It is an 
insult to women everywhere. And even more amazing is that this 
resolution is being proposed by the so-called party of states' rights.
  They are not proposing a Federal law. They are taking away the rights 
of a locality, the District, Washington, D.C., which is larger than 
some States and has a population larger than most States.
  This is a new low in this Congress. I urge a strong ``no'' vote.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for folks who were just turning on the TVs back in their 
office, they may think we are in the middle of issue debate right now--
not the case. We can get into issue debate as soon as we pass this rule 
to begin that debate.
  What makes me so proud about the work that we do in the Rules 
Committee is that it makes in order the ability to have these kinds of 
in-depth discussions.
  We can't have this kind of discussion right here--there are three 
topics in this bill--because these three topics in this bill will come 
later in the day, each being discussed individually.
  I will go back to where I began, Mr. Speaker. We are exercising 
responsibilities of the Constitution under Article I, section 8, that 
require us to do oversight on the District of Columbia. Similarly, we 
are pushing back on executive overreach in H.R. 1732, the Regulatory 
Integrity Protection Act. That is that big Federal grab over all the 
water that our States are currently regulating. And finally, we will be 
bringing up that balanced budget, the first reconciled budget that most 
in this Chamber have ever seen.
  This rule makes that debate possible. It will be a free and open 
debate on the budget, as we allowed every single budget to be debated 
earlier on this floor, it is going to be an open debate on H.R. 1732, 
the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, where the Rules Committee made 
in order every Democratic suggestion that was offered there, every 
amendment that came before the Rules Committee. And it will be an up-
or-down vote after debate on H.J. Res. 43, the resolution of 
disapproval, as the very 1974 act that provided for self-governance of 
the District of Columbia anticipated.

  If we pass this rule, Mr. Speaker, we can get into that substance, 
and I look forward to a robust debate on all three of those topics.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. McGovern, for your leadership and for 
yielding.

[[Page H2681]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to H.J. 
Res. 43. This bill would undermine the District's Reproductive Health 
Non-Discrimination Act, which would protect employees who work in the 
District from workplace discrimination based on the employee's personal 
reproductive healthcare decisions.
  For example, this includes prohibiting an employer from firing an 
employee for using in vitro fertilization or birth control.
  Simply put, this rule and bill is yet another Republican attack on 
women's access to health care and another battle in the war on women. 
And of course, as always, you target the women of the District of 
Columbia to set a standard for the rest of the country.
  What in the world is the connection between your private healthcare 
decisions and job performance? This is so cynical. It is so wrong. No 
woman should have an employer or a politician interfering in her 
personal health decisions.
  The D.C. government has a right to determine how they want to protect 
their workers. Employees should be evaluated at work based on their 
performance, not on their personal and private reproductive healthcare 
decisions.
  The District of Columbia seeks basic fairness for its women, and this 
rule and this resolution are outrageous. It is undemocratic and, once 
again, ignores the Home Rule Act. Yes, Congress should not be dictating 
any policy to the District of Columbia. This debate has been held. The 
Home Rule Act was passed in 1973.
  Instead of undermining the law that seeks to protect the citizens and 
women of D.C. from discrimination based on their private reproductive 
healthcare decisions, we should be getting back to the real business 
that Congress needs to address, like strengthening our economy, lifting 
families out of poverty, criminal justice reform, and creating job 
opportunities for all.
  So let's defeat this. Let's support the District of Columbia and its 
decisions. Let's respect them. Let's respect the women of the District 
of Columbia. They, too, have that right.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Massachusetts 
I do not have any further speakers remaining, and I would inquire if he 
has any further speakers remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I do, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Thank you to the gentleman from Worcester 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and its 
assault on Americans' reproductive health rights. All women should have 
the right to make their own healthcare decisions without fear of losing 
their jobs.
  With reports of women being fired for undergoing in vitro 
fertilization and being fired for being a single mom, the City Council 
of Washington, D.C. passed a resolution to ban workplace discrimination 
based on personal reproductive healthcare decisions.
  This joint resolution does not infringe on religious liberty. It 
ensures the freedom to practice individual religious and moral beliefs. 
This decision of the D.C. Council will protect women and ensure that 
reproductive health decisions are made by women and not their employers 
and not corporations.
  It is 2015, and I would love for Congress to be debating women in the 
workplace. We should be talking about how we achieve equal pay, how we 
increase paid sick leave, and how to help working families make ends 
meet. We should not be stripping away the progress that has already 
been made.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ quarter minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend, because I would like to correct 
some misstatements from the other side.
  Mr. Speaker, the former Mayor and the former Attorney General never 
detailed what their concern was, but just in case, the District passed 
an amendment that made it clear that insurance and abortion are not 
covered by this bill.
  I want to be explicit.

                              {time}  1415

  A pro-life organization is not required to hire someone who advocates 
against abortion. An employee must carry out and must advocate whatever 
is the mission of the organization.
  This bill has an exception for organizations' religious and political 
views. Both must be carried out.
  The 1973 Home Rule Act has not come to this floor before because only 
three times in 25 years has it been taken up, and that was mostly 
because D.C. mistakenly wandered into Federal matters. That is why this 
Federal authority was retained in the House of Representatives and in 
the Senate, not to overturn local law whenever the other side simply 
disagreed with it.
  I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding.
  Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule. I just wanted to make 
that clear before I continue here.
  Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating to come to the floor and have to 
squeeze into a very short period of time three different bills on one 
rule. These are three very controversial bills.
  You have heard about the bill that essentially is a war on women in 
the District of Columbia, that denies women and men their privacy and 
their right to reproductive health care. We have a bill in here also 
that essentially tries to gut the Clean Water Act, which is very 
controversial and has a very direct impact on the health and well-being 
of the people of this country. And then we have this budget that was 
filed minutes before the Rules Committee met. Nobody read it.
  I should also point out that the Rules Committee reports that, 
although the resolution waives all points of order against provisions 
in H.J. Res. 43, the committee is not aware of any point of order. 
Well, one of the points of order is the 3-day layover, which is being 
violated, so the committee is waiving a point of order with regard to 
that.
  Look, we should be debating an immigration reform bill. We should be 
debating a pay equity bill. We should be debating an increase in the 
minimum wage. We should be debating a comprehensive long-term highway 
and transportation reauthorization bill to help rebuild this country. 
There are so many important things that we should be debating, and, 
instead, we are bringing these wedge issues to the floor. We are 
bringing an anti-environmental bill to the floor that is going nowhere, 
and we are bringing a budget to the floor that paves the way for a lot 
of nothing.
  Unless we fix the sequestration problem, the Senate is not going to 
take up any of these appropriations bills, and neither should we.
  We ought to put the American people first and put the electioneering 
off. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things I love about this institution is my 
colleagues come to the floor with different life experiences. They come 
with different opinions. They come with a different set of bosses. The 
700,000 folks that I call my boss back home in Georgia, I am sure, have 
very different views than those who call themselves the boss of my 
friend from Massachusetts.
  But I tell you, the three bills that this rule makes in order--not 
that this

[[Page H2682]]

rule declares a foregone conclusion of passage. No. It just makes in 
order for debate on the floor of this House. These three bills are 
exactly the kind of thing that this House should be working on, and I 
am proud to bring it today.
  Number one, Mr. Speaker, I don't serve on the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee. That is where this resolution of 
disapproval has come from. I did last cycle. I don't this cycle. I have 
heard colleague after colleague come to the floor and defend the rights 
of not being fired because your sister or your daughter or your son or 
your brother used birth control.
  Mr. Speaker, that is outrageous. I can't imagine that someone would 
be fired for what their sister or their brother does in terms of their 
reproductive health choices. I agree. I agree. And if there is an 
opportunity to work together to prevent that from happening--that is 
apparently happening en masse here in the District of Columbia--I want 
to be a part of it.
  But the truth is, it is not happening en masse. In fact, it is not 
happening at all. It is not happening at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not mind being lectured by my friends to get back 
to the business of the people. I do not mind. In fact, I am onboard 
with it every single day of the week. We can start earlier, and we can 
start later, and I will be here. But do not, Mr. Speaker, do not 
lecture me on getting about the business of the people and come down 
with story after story after story that is not what this legislation is 
about, that is not a problem, that is not something that any of us 
disagree on.
  Mr. Speaker, we have some legitimate disagreements on this floor, and 
if we pass this rule, we will be able to get into the nitty-gritty of 
those disagreements.
  But we do not disagree on the freedom of family members to make their 
own reproductive health choices without it impacting our own 
employment.
  I will say to my friend sincerely: if we can find a case in the 
District of Columbia--I don't mean a case this year; I don't mean a 
case last year; I mean a case ever of that happening--seek me out as 
your partner, and I will help you. Because what folks seem to miss here 
in this conga line of frustration is that if we reject the D.C. 
Council's resolution, we return D.C. to the law of the land as it 
exists, when? Today. We don't take a single right away from anybody. We 
don't take a single freedom away from anybody. We are not interested in 
doing that whatsoever. What we are interested in doing is protecting 
religious freedom.
  It turns out, if you live in Washington, D.C., Mr. Speaker, you might 
work for an institution that lobbies for life. You might work for an 
institution that focuses on faith. This is a town of ideas, Mr. 
Speaker.
  In the rush to pass a piece of legislation--these are not my words. 
These are the words of Vincent Gray in his letter to the members of the 
council of the District of Columbia:

       In the rush to push this bill through, the council did not 
     take the time to protect this cathedral of freedom that we 
     have here, did not take the time to make sure that that first 
     and most important of our constitutional freedoms was 
     protected.

  Now, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is the Constitution. There is 
nothing that the District of Columbia can do to undermine the 
Constitution. But they can cause a lot of problems for folks along the 
way. This is a resolution of disapproval to prevent that from 
happening.
  Mr. Speaker, the second bill that is here, H.R. 1732, the Regulatory 
Integrity Protection Act, my friends suggest that we are talking about 
clean water in this country, that this is about Republicans undermining 
clean water.
  I will say again, as I said about the resolution of disapproval: if 
we pass this bill, we will roll the regulatory environment of clean 
water so far back, it will be just like it is today. That is what we 
are going to do. I just want to be clear about those radical ideas that 
my friends on the left have suggested.
  If we have the will in this body to pass this bill, we are going to 
roll regulations so far back, it will be exactly like it is as I am 
standing here today.
  Mr. Speaker, what this bill is about is preventing the regulatory 
overreach going forward.
  Guess what: I live in Gwinnett County, Georgia. I challenge you to 
have a water treatment plant that does a better job than we do. We have 
a water fountain right there where the sewage gets treated, Mr. 
Speaker. You can go ahead and press that water fountain and have 
yourself a drink. That is how clean it is. We put it back into the lake 
cleaner than we take it out of the lake.
  I will not be lectured by my friends in an executive office downtown 
about how to clean water in the State of Georgia. I promise you, I care 
more about clean water in Georgia than anyone on Pennsylvania Avenue 
does. We are succeeding today.
  If we have a problem with State regulation of clean water, come to 
me. I will be your partner. We will work on that together.
  The problem is not that Georgia isn't doing a good job. The problem 
is, the Feds are planning to get in the way of Georgia doing a good 
job. This bill will stop it. If we pass this rule, we will be able to 
have that debate.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill that makes me the proudest is our 
concurrent budget resolution. My friends have lots to say about why it 
is this budget doesn't balance. Let's be clear: I believe that they are 
wrong.
  But what is more important in this discussion, Mr. Speaker, is that 
my friends don't want the budget to balance. We had a free and open 
debate on this floor. We considered every budget that any Member of 
this Chamber wanted to offer, every single one.
  An interesting thing happened, Mr. Speaker. Every Republican budget 
that was introduced balanced within 10 years and didn't raise taxes on 
hard-working Americans. Every single budget the Democrats introduced 
never balanced--not in 10 years, not in 20 years, not in 100 years--and 
every single one raised taxes on hard-working Americans by trillions of 
dollars. Trillions of dollars in new taxes, and it still didn't reach 
balance.
  My friends, I understand we have a fundamental disagreement about how 
this country ought to be run, and I am glad that we have that debate 
here in this Chamber. We are a deliberative body. I respect the 
opinions of my friends. I do believe there is a common ground that we 
can come to. But, Mr. Speaker, this is that common ground today.
  For years, the budget wasn't even passed in the United States Senate, 
much less try to bring it together so that the House and the Senate are 
working off a single page of music.
  For the first time since 1991, this Chamber has done its job in 
concert with the Senate. It is no small thing. Far from being something 
to be criticized, it is something to be celebrated.
  I don't know where the votes are going to be, Mr. Speaker. 
Conferencing something with the Senate is hard. I promise you that my 
bosses back home in Georgia have a much more conservative view of the 
world than many of the folks do in the United States Senate. But guess 
what, I don't get everything I want every day. But what I get is an 
opportunity to come together to build that bridge of common ground and 
agreement.
  That is the agreement we have before us today--not my ideas, not 
Democratic ideas, not Republican ideas, but collaborative House-Senate 
ideas--a budget for the Federal Government for the first time in 15 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues: Take a look at this rule. 
You will be proud. Take a look at the work of the hard-working people 
in the Rules Committee upstairs--nine Republicans, four Democrats 
getting together late in the evening, trying to make the rules work--
you will be proud.
  Every single Democratic amendment was made in order on the Regulatory 
Integrity Protection Act. The resolution of disapproval, brought 
exactly as the Home Rule Act intended: last used by Democrats to 
disapprove; today used by this Chamber.
  And finally, that budget brought only after every single Member's 
ideas were debated, and the best rose to the top.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support from all of my colleagues for this 
fair and honest rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 231, the special rule governing 
consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11, 
the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, included 
a prophylactic waiver of points of order against its consideration and 
it was described as such in House

[[Page H2683]]

Report 114-98. Due to an unexpected change in the legislative schedule, 
the waiver of all points of order against consideration would now 
include a waiver of clause 8(a)(1)(A) of rule XXII, prohibiting the 
consideration of a conference report until the third calendar day on 
which the conference report has been available in the Congressional 
Record.
  It is important to note that the text of the conference report and 
the joint explanatory statement were made available in electronic form 
on April 29, 2015.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 231 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       In section 2, strike ``except one hour of debate.'' and 
     insert ``except one hour of debate and one motion to recommit 
     with instructions that the Managers on the part of the 
     House--
       (1) reject the austere and mindless sequester spending cuts 
     in critical services and instead offer a plan to put the 
     budget on a fiscally responsible path by making responsible, 
     targeted spending cuts and by closing special interest tax 
     breaks that benefit only the very wealthiest.
       (2) provide equal increases in both defense and non-defense 
     spending above the sequester cap levels to:
       a. make necessary investments that boost the economy to 
     create jobs, rebuild our infrastructure, educate our children 
     and sharpen the nation's competitive edge;
       b. avoid another unnecessary and harmful government 
     shutdown; and
       c. protect national security, including law enforcement, 
     homeland security, defense and international programs that 
     help protect the nation; and
       (3) protect Medicare and reject attempts to end Medicare's 
     guaranteed benefit by turning it into a voucher system that 
     will increase costs for seniors and destabilize the 
     traditional Medicare program that has served seniors well for 
     half a century.
                                  ____


        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. WOODALL. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and 
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 181, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 180]

                               YEAS--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee

[[Page H2684]]


     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Frankel (FL)
     Lewis
     McKinley
     Payne
     Polis
     Scott (VA)
     Smith (MO)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Welch

                              {time}  1455

  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 181, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 181]

                               AYES--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--181

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Watson Coleman
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Kirkpatrick
     Lewis
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McKinley
     Payne
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Welch


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1504

  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.

                          ____________________