[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 184 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H9379-H9390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2029, MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2016; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER
19, 2015, THROUGH JANUARY 4, 2016; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 566 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 566
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
2029) making appropriations for military construction, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other
purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider
in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a
motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the
Senate amendment with each of the two amendments specified in
section 3 of this resolution. The Senate amendment and the
motion shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the
question except as specified in section 2 of this resolution.
Clause 5(b) of rule XXI shall not apply to the motion.
Sec. 2. (a) The question of adoption of the motion shall
be divided between the two House amendments specified in
section 3 of this resolution. The two portions of the divided
question shall be considered in the order specified by the
Chair. Either portion of the divided question may be subject
to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.
(b) The portion of the divided question comprising the
amendment specified in section 3(a) of this resolution shall
be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. The portion of the divided question
comprising the amendment specified in section 3(b) of this
resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Ways and Means.
Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in the first and second
sections of this resolution are as follows:
[[Page H9380]]
(a) An amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 114-39 modified by the amendment printed in the report
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.
(b) An amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 114-40.
Sec. 4. If only the portion of the divided question
comprising the amendment specified in section 3(b) of this
resolution is adopted, that portion shall be engrossed as an
amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 2029.
Sec. 5. The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may
insert in the Congressional Record at any time during the
remainder of the first session of the 114th Congress such
material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate amendment
and the motion specified in the first section of this
resolution.
Sec. 6. On any legislative day of the first session of the
One Hundred Fourteenth Congress after December 18, 2015--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 7. On any legislative day of the second session of
the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress before January 5, 2016--
(a) the Speaker may dispense with organizational and
legislative business;
(b) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved if applicable; and
(c) the Chair at any time may declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 8. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the periods addressed
by sections 6 and 7 of this resolution as though under clause
8(a) of rule I.
Sec. 9. Each day during the periods addressed by sections
6 and 7 of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar
day for purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution
(50 U.S.C. 1546).
Sec. 10. Each day during the periods addressed by sections
6 and 7 of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative
day for purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
Sec. 11. It shall be in order at any time through the
legislative day of December 18, 2015, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
Sec. 12. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of December 18, 2015.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the 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. COLE. 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 Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported
a rule for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2029. The
resolution makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the
Committee on Appropriations that the House concur in the Senate
amendment with two House amendments.
Amendment No. 1, consisting of the text of the omnibus appropriations
bill, is provided 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by
the Chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Amendment No. 2, consisting of the text of the tax extenders bill, is
provided 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the Chair
and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The rule provides for a separate vote on each amendment. In addition,
the rule provides that, if one or both amendments are adopted, then the
bill is sent to the Senate. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides the
standard recess authorities typically given at the end of the first
session of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be presenting to the House today the
rule which will provide for the consideration of two critical pieces of
legislation which are the product of long and hard negotiations between
the House, the Senate, and the administration.
First, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of the
Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015, the PATH Act. This
legislation makes over 20 different tax provisions permanent, like the
Research and Development Tax Credit, section 179 expensing, and the
State and local sales tax deduction.
Many of these provisions have existed as part of the Tax Code for
many years. However, they were often extended retroactively or on a
yearly basis, making it difficult for businesses and individuals to
plan effectively. Making these provisions permanent will allow
businesses and individuals to make more sensible decisions throughout
the year, not just during the final 12 or 14 days at the end of the
year after Congress passes a retroactive extension.
This bill also includes extensions of other tax provisions, like the
New Markets Tax Credit, the bonus depreciation, and the Work
Opportunity Tax Credit through 2019. Additionally, there are other
provisions that are retroactively extended for 2015 and through 2016.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the PATH Act includes a number of program
integrity measures designed to strengthen the integrity of the tax
credit programs that have high rates of improper payments, fraud, and
abuse.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill includes a series of reforms designed
to rein in the power of the Internal Revenue Service and better protect
the American people, like firing IRS employees who take politically
motivated actions against taxpayers and prohibiting IRS employees from
using personal email accounts for official business.
In addition to these critical tax extenders, the rule also provides
for the consideration of the omnibus spending bill for fiscal year 2016
at the funding levels agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget Act passed
earlier this year.
There is much to be proud of in this 2,000-page bill and accompanying
explanatory statement. But, as I have told many of my colleagues, if
you can't find something you don't agree with in the bill, you must not
be looking hard enough.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, this omnibus spending measure is a
compromise and a reflection of divided government, but it also
demonstrates a commitment by both sides to restoring regular order to
this House.
While I could provide a long list of things I wish were included,
this bill still maintains key Republican and conservative priorities.
For example, the bill keeps the EPA staffing levels at the lowest level
since 1989. In addition, it terminates dozens of duplicative,
ineffective, or unauthorized programs.
Beyond the numerous cuts and restrictions on the executive branch,
this bill also delays additional, onerous ObamaCare mandates. For
example, it delays the Cadillac tax on healthcare insurance for an
additional 2 years and imposes a moratorium on the health insurer
excise tax in 2017.
In addition to these important changes, the omnibus also reveals some
of the programs that Republicans value and that, frankly, Democrats
value as well. Included in this legislation is a $2 billion increase
for the National Institutes of Health. Likewise, it increases funding
by 9.8 percent at the VA while strengthening the restrictions and
oversight to ensure that taxpayer dollars will be used more
effectively.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, this legislation includes a repeal of the
crude oil export ban. Repealing this ban, which has been in place for
the past 40 years, has the potential to create more than a million new
jobs across the United States, add $170 billion annually to our gross
domestic product, and lead to still lower gasoline prices. This
provision is a victory for the American people.
I am sure many of my colleagues will speak about other portions of
this legislation. However, in closing, I would like to recognize the
hard work of Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, and Speaker Ryan,
who were able to lead us to this necessary compromise.
This is the second year in a row that we will have been able to
complete a vast majority of the appropriations process before the end
of the calendar
[[Page H9381]]
year, giving us the ability to begin the process anew when we return in
January. It is a culmination of the hard work of the Members and of the
staff over the past 10 months, and it should be worthy of all of the
Members' support.
I urge the support of the rule and of the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole),
my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, here we are again. It is the end of the year, and once
more we have come to the brink of a government shutdown. It is sad to
say, but this has become routine.
We need to return to regular order, where we pass appropriations
bills one at a time and not end up with a 2,000-plus-page bill at the
last minute that nobody has thoroughly read.
In all candor, the excuse that it is all the Senate's fault is a bit
disingenuous. Of the 12 appropriations bills the government must pass
each year, we only considered 6 in the House. We stopped considering
appropriations bills because some of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle were more interested in protecting the Confederate flag than
in getting the people's business done.
We have a deal before us that, if passed, would prevent us from
heading toward a government shutdown and damaging our economy.
Americans cannot afford another manufactured crisis, something that my
friends on the other side of the aisle have become good at. The so-
called deal that we will debate today and tomorrow reflects the
imperfect process that produced it.
I am grateful to my colleagues who worked to get a product to us
that, hopefully, can avoid a catastrophe. I am especially grateful to
the staff who worked around the clock these last weeks to get us to
this point. Truthfully, we should be apologizing to the staff for
putting them through this ordeal. This is not the way to run Congress.
There are two parts to the underlying legislation: Amendment 1 to
H.R. 2029, the omnibus Appropriations Act, and Amendment 2, known as
the tax extenders bill.
The omnibus Appropriations Act is, by any measure, a mixed bag, but,
importantly, it does begin to undo so-called sequestration, which has
done great damage to our economy and great harm to our people.
{time} 0930
In my view, sequestration represents an all-time high in recklessness
and stupidity. We need to reverse it. This bill begins to do that.
In the omnibus there will be necessary increases in funding for NIH,
NSF, Head Start, Pell grants, job training, State and local law
enforcement, programs to prevent violence against women, energy
efficiency programs, FEMA, our national parks, VA medical service
accounts, the McGovern-Dole international school feeding program, a
reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and a host of
other programs. I am grateful for these increases.
This bill includes a 75-year extension to the Zadroga Act, which
supports health care for the brave 9/11 first responders who risked
their lives at Ground Zero to save others and became ill as a result.
These are true American heroes, and I am pleased that Congress has
finally done the right thing by ensuring that they will be able to get
the care that they deserve.
One of the things, however, that concerns me about the omnibus
appropriations bill is that it contains a controversial cybersecurity
measure that many of us feel falls short of safeguarding Americans'
private information. Quite frankly, a provision like this does not
belong in an omnibus appropriations bill.
Last night in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to strike
this cybersecurity provision. Every single Republican--every single
one--voted against my provision.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a ``Dear Colleague'' that was
sent to all of us from Representatives Lofgren, Amash, Conyers,
Farenthold, and Polis in opposition to the cybersecurity measure being
part of this omnibus appropriations bill.
December 16, 2015.
From: The Honorable Zoe Lofgren.
Omnibus Includes Privacy Violating Provisions: Join Reps.
Lofgren, Amash, Conyers, Farenthold, and Polis in
Opposition
Dear Colleague: We are writing to express our concerns with
the inclusion of the Cybersecurity Act in the omnibus. What
was intended to be a cybersecurity bill to facilitate the
sharing of information between the private sector and
government was instead drafted in such a way that it has
effectively become a surveillance bill, and allows
information shared by companies to be used by the government
to prosecute unrelated crimes.
The bill intended to allow the private sector to share
``cyber threat indicators'' with government agencies.
However, depending on the type of ``indicator,'' it is highly
likely that private information otherwise protected by the
Fourth Amendment will also be disclosed to government
surveillance agencies.
Unfortunately, as drafted, the bill falls short of
providing safeguards to protect Americans' private
information.
In particular:
1. This bill allows the use of shared information for more
than just ``cybersecurity purposes.'' It allows the
government to investigate and prosecute specific threats to
serious bodily injury or serious economic injury, computer
fraud, and trade secrets violations, among other criminal
violations.
WHY THIS IS OF CONCERN: Specific threats to serious bodily
injury or economic harm are extremely broad categories of
crimes. So are identity theft, computer fraud, and trade
secrets violations. By allowing the use of this information
for non-cybersecurity purposes, the bill encourages
intelligence agencies to collect and retain as much
information as they can for as long as possible, in the
unlikely event that one day it might be useful. An
alternative bill, H.R. 1731, which received the largest House
support, prohibited these uses and limited the use of cyber
indicators to only cyber security purposes for this reason.
2. The bill fails to include an express prohibition on
using this information for ``surveillance'' purposes.
WHY THIS IS OF CONCERN: Express prohibition of
``surveillance'' is vital because past experience
demonstrates that intelligence agencies will broadly
interpret the included non-cyber, criminal allowances to
perform surveillance. For example, few thought the National
Security Agency (NSA) would interpret ``relevant'' to allow
collection of every phone record in America. Surveillance is
merely an investigation method, so this bill contains no
protections against the NSA (or any other agency) from
conducting broad surveillance using this information in the
name of stopping any enumerated offenses.
3. The private sector and government are only required to
remove personal information they ``know at the time of
sharing'' to be included in the information they share with
DHS.
WHY THIS IS OF CONCERN: The information sharing legislation
that passed the House with the strongest support, H.R. 1731,
required both government and private sector to take
``reasonable efforts'' to scrub all personal information
``reasonably believed'' to be unrelated to a cybersecurity
threat prior to sharing the information. Changing this to a
``knowing'' standard, as the Cybersecurity Act does, sets the
bar too high. Developing automated systems to ``know'' that
something is personal information is likely impossible. As
such, the ``knowing'' standard encourages willful blindness.
Why would the government or private sector expend time and
effort to develop effective processes to determine when it
``knows'' something is personal information rather than just
develop a cursory review process likely to permit the flow of
private personal information.
Furthermore, by limiting scrubbing only to ``the time of
sharing'' there is no requirement that the government remove
personal information it later discovers.
Finally, the bill leaves details on how to develop privacy
protection procedures around the collection, storage, and
retention of shared information to DHS and also to the
Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence. The
AG and DNI also determined these same standards for the bulk-
collection of telephone metadata. These standards allowed for
the largest abuse of American privacy in recent history and
necessitated Congress passing the USA FREEDOM Act.
4. No express limitations on what or how DHS can share
information with the DOD or NSA.
WHY THIS IS OF CONCERN: Earlier this year Congress passed
major privacy reforms because past experience has shown that
if the NSA acquires information, they will use it in ways
unintended by legislators. Every cybersecurity bill passed by
the House this year has prohibited automatic information
sharing (and in some cases all sharing) with the NSA. Without
this prohibition, designating DHS as the ``sole information
sharing portal'' is essentially meaningless, since DOD and
NSA automatically receive cyber threat indicators along with
the rest of civilian agencies. As this bill is drafted,
functionally--there is no difference between directly
[[Page H9382]]
giving this information to DHS and directly giving it to the
NSA. There should be strong rules protecting personal
information from being received, processed, and stored by
intelligence agencies, which this bill lacks.
Sincerely,
Rep. Zoe Lofgren.
Rep. Justin Amash.
Rep. John Conyers.
Rep. Blake Farenthold.
Rep. Jared Polis.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, one additional concern, for me and for
many others, is an awful provision--and I stress the word ``awful''--in
this bill, which constitutes a big giveaway to Big Oil and could lead
to an increase in gas prices. Big Oil gives big money to campaigns,
and, sadly, Big Oil is getting a very big return on its investment with
this bill. This provision could intensify climate change, have
devastating environmental impacts, and does nothing to save consumers
money on energy costs.
I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If
the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to strike
this outrageous provision.
My colleagues will have to decide whether the good outweighs the bad
before casting their vote on the omnibus bill. Compromise is never
easy, but in a divided government it is essential if we are to move
forward.
One of my biggest critiques of this Republican-controlled Congress
has been the total disregard for Americans who struggle--those stuck in
poverty. Time and time again in this Chamber, poor people have been
demonized and disparaged while those who are well off and well
connected get one tax break after another after another.
I am pleased that in the tax extenders package there are provisions
to protect millions of struggling Americans from a tax increase and
boost family incomes by permanently extending essential improvements to
the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit for low-income
working families, as well as the American opportunity tax credit to
help low- and middle-income families pay for college.
All of these improvements to these tax credits were originally passed
as part of the 2009 Recovery Act, and each has played a critical role
in fueling America's economic recovery after the financial crisis.
Making these improvements permanent would be among the biggest steps
Congress can take to reduce poverty, and without action these credits
would expire at the end of 2017.
Every year, these improvements are expected to lift about 16 million
people, including about 8 million children, out of poverty, or closer
to rising above the poverty line. Simply put, making these improvements
to the EITC and the CTC permanent will keep more children out of
poverty than any other Federal program.
The real world impact cannot be overstated. For example, a single
mother with two children who works full time at the Federal minimum
wage of $7.25 an hour and makes $14,500 a year would lose her entire
$1,725 child tax credit without congressional action. For a family on a
fixed income, this would be a terrible setback. Additionally, making
the American opportunity tax credit permanent would ensure this program
continues to help millions of low- and middle-income families pay for
college every year.
In addition to the millions of families these provisions would help,
this legislation before us takes important steps to bolster investments
in education, job training, advanced manufacturing, infrastructure, and
research, while also strengthening national security.
I am especially pleased that this deal includes a provision that
would make permanent tax parity for commuters who take mass transit--
something that has long been a major priority of mine. For far too
long, the Tax Code has allowed employers to offer their workers more in
pretax parking benefits than in mass transit benefits. Parity between
parking and mass transit benefits was first established in the Recovery
Act and has been extended on a short-term basis since then.
The bill before us would establish permanent parity for mass transit
commuters. It is an attractive fringe benefit that employers can offer
their workers. It offers significant savings to employees who rely on
mass transit. It is especially important to my constituents in central
and western Massachusetts who take the train every day into downtown
Boston.
Mr. Speaker, by averting a government shutdown and passing this deal,
we will be able to bring certainty to small businesses, as well as
companies investing in the United States, while extending important
incentives that support hiring and investing in low-income communities.
Following the historic international climate agreement reached in
Paris this past weekend, I am also pleased that this deal would extend
tax incentives for investments in wind and solar energy, helping to
drive significant reductions in carbon pollution and other dangerous
air pollutants and provide certainty for investments in clean energy.
Investments like these would not be possible without the recent
budget deal, which reversed about 90 percent of the cuts that
sequestration would have made to nondefense discretionary programs in
fiscal year 2016 with parity between defense and nondefense spending.
Mr. Speaker, while there are many positive provisions in this deal,
one major concern is that the House Republican tax extender bill would
provide hundreds of billions of dollars in special interest tax breaks
that are permanent and unpaid for. Such massive giveaways to special
interests like Big Oil are a step in the wrong direction.
As our economy continues to recover, we have a responsibility to the
American people to pass legislation that helps to grow the paychecks of
hardworking families and make the investments that will build the
bright future that our children deserve.
I am especially troubled by the fact that the tax extenders bill
continues the misguided double standard of financing tax cuts with
budget deficits while insisting on offsets for any increases in
domestic spending. Quite frankly, this is dishonest coming from my
Republican colleagues who so often claim to be focused on reducing the
deficit.
So many American families are working hard to get back on their feet
and give their children opportunities that they deserve. Continuing
this double standard of holding back on investments that we could be
making now to help even more of our fellow citizens is inexcusable.
Extending hundreds of billions in tax breaks to the most powerful
interests when our country needs much stronger investment in jobs and
economic growth for all is a troubling and sober reminder that we must
do more to put hardworking families first. Quite frankly, I think it
highlights the difference between the two parties. Democrats have long
championed the importance of investing in our infrastructure, investing
in our people, and investing in our economy.
Mr. Speaker, the omnibus spending bill and the tax extenders package
before us today is not perfect. Members on both sides of the aisle are
going to have to decide for themselves whether the good outweighs the
bad. Clearly, there are some good things and there are some bad things.
Hopefully, in the future, we will return to regular order and do our
business in a more thoughtful and effective way.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to begin by agreeing with my friend from Massachusetts on a
very important point, but perhaps adding a little bit of nuance.
I celebrate, probably as much as anybody in this Chamber, my friend's
and his side of the aisle's newfound commitment to regular order. When
they were in the majority here, they certainly didn't practice it. As a
matter of fact, in 2009, I think only one or two appropriations bills
reached the floor. During that period, the right of having an open
rule, where every Member with an amendment could come down and offer it
in the House, was taken away by my friend. Again, I appreciate that.
My friend and I will disagree about what happened this year, because,
indeed, we did begin down the path of regular order, we did bring six
bills across the floor, we did bring all 12 bills through the
committee. But, as my friend said, the Senate did not do that. Frankly,
when regular order breaks down on one side of the rotunda in the
Capitol building, it breaks down on the other as well. You can't keep
[[Page H9383]]
bringing bills down when the other side simply won't bring bills at
all. You are wasting a lot of time and you are casting a lot of votes
that, frankly, become meaningless.
Let us put this behind us. I actually agree with my friend. I think
because of the bipartisan budget agreement, which my friend supported,
and I supported as well, we now know what our spending levels will be
next year. We now have an opportunity to do exactly what I am sure he
wants to do, and I think every Member, regardless of viewpoint of
party, wants to do. That is to bring all 12 bills to the floor and give
every Member an opportunity to participate. That would be a good thing.
The second point I would like to make in response to my friend deals
with sequestration. I agree with him. To his credit, he has been a
consistent opponent of sequestration. But we ought to remember this
about that particular proposal. Sequestration was President Obama's
idea--suggestion--in the 2011 budget agreement.
There are a lot of imperfections in that budget agreement. One of the
things was that a supercommittee was set up that was supposed to work
these things out and sequester was never supposed to happen. For
whatever reason, that committee was unable to actually do that.
Sequester did save a lot of money. Our deficit is considerably lower
than it was.
Speaking of deficits--and my friend raised his concern about deficit
spending--I share that concern too. I think it is worth pointing out
that the last 4 years that my friends on the other side were in the
majority, the deficit rose every single year, peaking at about $1.4
trillion.
While we may disagree on particular provisions, the truth is for the
4 years--and now 5--that Republicans have been in power in the House,
the deficit has gone down every single year. I think that tells you who
is committed to deficit reduction and who is serious about cutting
spending.
Indeed, we are spending less money in this omnibus spending bill in
discretionary accounts than we were spending when George Bush was
President of the United States in 2008, so that is a pretty serious
reduction. I would invite my friends to work with this on the real
driver of the deficit, and that is the entitlement programs, which
desperately need reform--Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That
is something that can only be done in a bipartisan fashion, and,
frankly, can only be done with Presidential leadership. In this case,
sadly, the President of the United States has been AWOL in the effort
to actually rein in entitlement spending.
My friend raised the lifting of the oil export ban in his remarks. On
this we just simply have a different point of view. I come from a part
of the world that has produced energy for this country for over 100
years and exported it. We think this is the key to sustaining the
growth in the industry.
Frankly, right now, $38 a barrel for oil means actually thousands of
layoffs in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and other energy-producing
States. The productivity of that sector, which has benefited every
American with lower energy prices and lower gasoline prices, has also
created a lot of difficulty for them.
We are the only country on the planet that does not allow for the
export of petroleum--the only one. Frankly, I think this is a case
where we ought to listen to other countries around the world, and we
ought to recognize some basic principles. Willing producers, willing
buyers, and free markets are good for everybody. That always gives you
the best product at the lowest price and creates the most innovation.
I think this is an enormous step in the right direction. I am very
proud that the two sides compromised and made this tough call--I know
for some of my friends--but I think the right call long term for our
country.
Finally, I would just like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by noting that
in my friend's remarks, while he certainly made what I think were some
excellent points about process, certainly had some points where we
differed, and certainly made some fair and legitimate critiques in what
is a very large bill--as I said earlier, you can always find something
to be critical of in this legislation--my friend also pointed out a lot
of the very many good things in this bill. Frankly, some of those
things that he likes, Members on my side don't necessarily agree with.
That is the product of a real negotiation between the two sides, the
two Chambers, and with the administration. There are wins and losses in
here--if we even want to call them losses. But I think there is a
victory here for the American people--stability, certainty, some really
key national investments, no government shutdown, and I think this year
the foundation, if we pass this legislation, for regular order, which I
know my friend very much wants, next year.
{time} 0945
We have moved a long way from where we were several years ago--
frankly, under both parties--to where we are today. I actually give
both sides considerable credit for this because I think there is a
genuine yearning from Members of both sides to get to regular order, to
make sure that, when we appropriate, everything is down here,
transparent, every amendment has an opportunity.
So, in the spirit of the Christmas season, we can put aside maybe
some of our differences here. I think we will pass, ultimately, a very
good bipartisan bill. I think we can make a commitment, an early New
Year's resolution, that next year we will go to exactly where my friend
wants to go and where I want to go and, frankly, where I know the
Speaker wants to go, and that is regular order where each bill comes to
the floor, receives due consideration, every Member has an opportunity
to participate, things are more transparent and, frankly, things are
more orderly. That will be possible because we came to a bipartisan
budget agreement this year early that set the spending limits for next
year. I think that is a very good thing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from
Oklahoma that I appreciate his commitment to regular order and
reminding us that Speaker Ryan has committed to regular order as well.
I am a little skeptical, so I am not going to hold my breath because I
probably won't make it until next year if I do that. I will just remind
him that the previous Speaker, Speaker Boehner, promised the same
thing, and we never saw it. In fact, we have the most closed Congress
in the history of United States Congresses.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I urge that we defeat the
previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that
would strike the provision in the omnibus that lifts the ban on
exporting crude oil.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. To discuss the proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I urge Members to defeat the previous question because I am not sure
that the majority has fully considered the permanent damage to jobs and
to national security if this is not properly transitioned and
implemented.
It was not too long ago that many of us in this room remember what we
call the odd-even days where we were waiting in long lines, just hoping
that we could get gasoline. Well, we have come a long way from there
through technology and the ability to extract more oil.
We made a strategic investment in American energy. We have refineries
on the West Coast. We have them on the East Coast. We have them in the
Gulf. That is critical to our national security because oil, without
refining, simply doesn't work.
So here we are today looking at lifting the 40-year-old oil ban. What
this really means is jobs and, in particular, this means jobs and a
strategic disadvantage to the East Coast where we will be losing many
of our refineries.
When it comes to very difficult times in this country, we need that
capacity.
[[Page H9384]]
We have the natural resource called oil, but if we don't have it in the
refining sense on the East Coast, on the West Coast, and in the Gulf,
we will be putting ourselves at a very strategic disadvantage. Those
long lines remind us of how critical it is to have that capacity.
It is about jobs, those skilled craftsmen who work in the refineries
day in and day out. So what this bill is doing is picking winners and
losers. We are trading jobs. I absolutely believe in that. We are
taking those East Coast jobs and shipping them overseas.
We only have one chance to get this right. This is like creating a
dam that has been holding back the water, but instead of letting it out
slowly and transitioning, we are just simply breaking that dam. We need
to make sure that we implement a transition for our refineries. The 199
is a step in the right direction for those transportation costs, but we
need more.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, this is refining capacity we cannot lose.
This is about our Nation's security. This is about jobs.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of American jobs and
independence for our strategic national security by defeating the
previous questions.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to respond quickly to my friend from New Jersey on the
refinery issue because I actually have two refineries in my district,
so not all refineries are located on the East and West Coast or in the
Gulf. There are quite a few of them in the historic middle part of the
country as well.
I am always concerned about those jobs as well because, as my friend
suggests, they are extremely important. He is precisely correct when he
says that just producing oil is not enough. You want to be able to
refine it.
I also will tell you that sitting in Cushing, Oklahoma, is over 250
million barrels of oil that can't be refined because there is not a
sufficient capacity for that particular kind of oil in this country.
I would also suggest that it is not fair for people to say you can
only sell the product you produce one place. Nobody else in the world
does that. Nobody else says you can't sell your product to any place in
the world in any market you want to. Only we do that.
Many people might want a captive audience, but that is just simply
not fair to the people at the other end of the process. They ought to
be able to sell their product, particularly when, in certain kinds of
crude, there is just simply not sufficient capacity. I would suggest
over time if we just have faith in the free market, those things will
be worked out, and we will eventually have the appropriate balance and
supply.
Again, I want to agree with my friend about the importance of the
refining industry, but I also want to agree about the importance of
free markets and the right and ability of people that produce products
and make substantial investments to sell their product anyplace to any
market that they care to do that. We are the only country in the world
that denies that privilege to people that find and produce oil. I think
if we remove that, frankly, we will have a more robust domestic
industry.
Again, this is an industry that is to be commended because it has
been their innovation that has created this abundance of production. We
have increased production in the United States by 85 percent in the
last 5 or 6 years. That wasn't done with any government program. That
wasn't done by the government. That was actually done by hardworking
entrepreneurs and workers in historic oil-producing areas and new areas
that are being opened up, in States like Pennsylvania and Ohio. This is
a good thing for the United States, and we ought to take full
advantage.
Their productivity has also brought them record low prices, and they
need the opportunity to market their product anyplace in the world that
they think they can get a decent price. In the long-term, that will
preserve the industry in the United States.
Again, to my friend's point, I care a lot about jobs. I would be
happy to take you to my State and show you how many thousands of jobs
we have lost in the last few months, in the last year and a half.
It is not just a question of oilfield work; it is also machinery,
production, and that sort of thing. Frankly, those losses will reach
into the manufacturing section of our country that produces much of the
steel, the pipe, and the concrete that are important. Those jobs aren't
just in our part of the country; they are all through the country.
Again, I want to work with my friend. I agree with his observation.
There were efforts made in good faith by both sides to provide some tax
relief to the refining industry. If that is not sufficient, I would be
happy to work with my friend to try and do more in that regard.
Again, I think this is a balanced bill. It is a historic opportunity
to do the right thing. At the end of the day, we are always better off
when we trust free markets, free men and women producing and selling
the products that they choose to make as widely as possible. That is
what has made the country great. That has certainly been the key to the
success in the energy industry. This is a step in the right direction
to make sure that we not only maintain, but expand that principle.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this has been a difficult process
creating this package. I commend Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi working
with the White House and our friends in the Senate to put together a
package that actually may secure support and passage from people on
both sides.
Tomorrow, we are going to consider an omnibus bill that, on balance,
I think is a very fair compromise, given the composition of this
Congress and the challenges that we are facing.
I am particularly interested in the unprecedented support for
neuroscience, something I have worked on for a long time, and the
significant funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a
priority of people on both sides of the aisle, but it has been bottled
up. We will be talking more about that tomorrow.
As it relates to the bill that we are going to have before us in a
few minutes, I wish that it had dealt more aggressively with the
question of the revenue needs of this country, something I have
consistently supported before I joined the Ways and Means Committee and
what we are going to have to be addressing in the future.
It is important to focus on the elements, I think, in the bill that
warrant my support for it. First and foremost, it provides certainty
for provisions that are important to a wide variety of our constituents
and interests that ultimately were going to be funded one way or
another. It harkened back to the saga we had of the doc fix, the SGR,
the sustainable growth rate that we forced people to jump through hoops
year after year.
In this case, we are going to provide some important certainty for
areas that invest in the future that I have spent a long time working
on in terms of wind, solar, the new market tax credits, the short-line
railroads. My friend from Massachusetts talked about a project we have
worked on for years, transit parity; and being able to settle the books
on that and move forward, I think, is very, very important.
It even is a little start on energy efficiency for commercial
buildings that I hope we can do better. Emerging industries like
American-produced cider get a tremendous benefit, incorporating the
CIDER Act that I have been working on.
I would call special attention to something again my friend from
Massachusetts referenced, and that is the provisions in this bill that
relate to low-income working Americans. The earned income tax credit
and the child tax credit were set to expire in 2017. This impacts 16
million people, raising them above poverty or at least getting to the
poverty level, of which half of those are children, 8 million children.
In my State, it is 164,000 families, some of Oregon's most vulnerable
working poor.
Now, leaving this out until 2017 I think plays Russian roulette with
it,
[[Page H9385]]
and it would be a mistake. No better deal is likely. I think it is
important to move forward on it and protect it now.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just very quickly, I want to thank my friend from Oregon for his
hard, bipartisan work on Ways and Means and various elements in this
package that came here. I want to thank him as well for the kind
remarks he made about the omnibus and his interest in research. I know
that is genuine, and he has been a champion of that. I look forward to
continuing to work with that.
Finally--and I know my friend would think this, too--we are all
concerned about the deficit. Some day, if we get serious about
entitlement reform, we will sit down and do it. Now, I believe that can
only be done in a bipartisan way. I would invite my friend sometime to
look at a bill that Mr. Delaney and I have to begin the process of
perhaps reforming Social Security in a bipartisan way. So, again, I
look forward to that. I appreciate my friend's good work.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), the ranking member of the Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Human Resources.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, across the world, this is a special time of
the year, and we have our traditions here in Washington. One of them is
underway at this moment in the House. It is called the ceremony of the
stuffing of the silk stockings. We do it each year, and we do it
generously. This bill is even referred to as a ``Christmas tree bill''
because special interests get special presents, ``ornaments'' on this
tree.
Much of the focus this year has been the fact that the direct
spending bill and the tax spending bill are considered under this same
rule. The press has focused most of its attention on the direct
spending bill, the Omnibus. While there has been some debate over some
of the policy provisions, it has really been the sideshow here.
What has driven the length of debate on this are Republicans--and
some Democrats who have enabled them, unfortunately--determined to get
as many permanent tax breaks as possible for those who have been
waiting for this Christmas tree. They have added hundreds of billions
of dollars of permanent tax breaks onto this bill.
{time} 1000
I must say, like many shoppers out there, they have put it all on the
credit card. It is just that it is your credit card. We are borrowing
from the Chinese, from the Saudis, around the world, in order to pay
for tax breaks for which not a penny has been paid. That is total
fiscal irresponsibility.
To cover this wrong of borrowing and adding more and more to our
national debt, they have reached out to put in a few good provisions. I
happen to be the author of the Refundability for the Higher Education
Tax Credit. I am delighted to see it extended permanently, but it does
not even expire this year, as is true of some of the other tax breaks
that are boasted about this morning.
The real threat from adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the
national debt has been clearly identified by my colleague from Oklahoma
candidly, and that is that Social Security and Medicare are the next
things up for consideration on the chopping block.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. DOGGETT. If you add this much debt unpaid for in a fiscally
irresponsible way, you begin to jeopardize retirement security,
Medicare, and Social Security because those so-called entitlements are
next up on the chopping block. Reject this giveaway.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to join my friend from Texas in his concern about the national
debt and the deficit. I think those are genuine and real.
I do point out to my friend that every year his side was in power the
annual deficit got greater for 4 consecutive years, peaking at $1.4
trillion. Every year the Republicans have been in power in the House,
it has come down.
We can argue about the specifics of national debt, but who ran it up
and who is trying to bring it down I think is pretty clear over the
last several years.
Second, while my friend is critical of many of the provisions--and,
frankly, I could list some provisions that I am critical of in this
legislation as well--I remind him it was negotiated by the Democratic
minority leader, the Speaker of the House, the leader of the Senate,
the minority leader of the Senate, and the President of the United
States.
Whatever is in this bill has been signed off by the leaders of both
parties, but certainly the leaders of his party. It is not some
Democrats that are involved. It is the top Democrats that were
involved. I presume they think this was in the best interest of the
country.
There are many items in here that we all like and agree on. There are
going to be items that both sides do not like. I mean, that is just the
nature of a compromise.
I could certainly tick off a list of things that I think either
should have been in the bill and aren't or that are in the bill that I
don't like. I look at the broader virtues here. I think it is good.
The final point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is this idea that we are
making permanent tax cuts, the reality is they have been permanent
anyway. We have been extending these things ad infinitum, forever.
The problem is, when you extend taxes instead of create certainty,
people don't know whether to invest, what to invest, what to do. You
actually don't get the productive value out of the tax cut.
I applaud my friend, Mr. Brady, on Ways and Means and his colleagues
on both sides of the aisle who are trying to make some things that are
common sense and that we do every single year or every other year
permanent so the American people can make an appropriate calculation.
I do invite my friend to come down next year and work seriously, as I
know he will, on trying to come to some sort of agreement on
entitlement spending, some sort of reforms. That is where 71 percent of
the total spending of the budget is. If you want to balance, you can't
rope it off and say these things we can never change over here.
I would invite my friend to look at Mr. Delaney's bill and my bill,
which is a process bill. It doesn't lay these things out. It doesn't
cut anything. What it does do is actually force us to sit down and make
some decisions. People on both sides of the aisle keep postponing this.
We ought to go back and honestly do what Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neill,
and Howard Baker did in 1983. They had a commission similar to what Mr.
Delaney and I have. Any recommendation to that commission would have to
be bipartisan. Then the Congress would have to vote on it up or down. I
can assure you that there will be things in a reform package that both
sides don't like, but Congress has ignored these things.
On Medicare and Medicaid, two big drivers, I am proud that we have at
least put proposals on the table in the Ryan and now the Price budgets,
proposals I know my friends probably don't agree with, but I think are
real efforts to actually reform those things.
What we don't have is a Democratic proposal on Medicare, a Democratic
proposal on Medicaid. Frankly, neither side has been willing to really
put something out on Social Security. I think that is something we
ought to do. That is something Mr. Delaney and I in a bipartisan way
have tried to do. I hope other Members will work with us next year.
I know that the Speaker is committed to trying to reform these
programs so we can save them so that the scenario that my friend laid
out does not happen, that they do not go bankrupt, that the American
people do not lose them. We are going to have to sit down and make some
hard decisions and make them in a bipartisan way.
The fact that we did this on this bill, this omnibus spending bill
and the tax extender portion, I think is a good start to sitting down
and having that conversation more broadly next year. I hope we do that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H9386]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Velazquez), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Small Business.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that the legislation
we are considering does nothing to address Puerto Rico's mounting debt
crisis. Puerto Rico's crisis is decades in the making, and it stems
from years of neglect from this very same body, the United States
Congress.
The United States Congress brought us where we are today. Now it has
a moral responsibility to act. Yet, my Republican colleagues are
standing in the way. Giving Puerto Rico authority to restructure its
debts will not cost taxpayers a dime, but it would help solve their
fiscal crisis.
To those who say Puerto Rico needs to cut spending, I ask you: How
much more? The island spends $2,000 less per student than the average
spent on the mainland. The government has already closed nearly 100
schools this year in addition to 60 closures last year. Sales taxes are
the highest in the United States and would increase from 7 percent to
11.5 percent.
The government has laid off 21 percent of its employees since 2008,
and the 2016 budget makes further cuts. Puerto Rico is doing its part
to raise revenue and cut expenses. Stop playing Russian roulette with
the well-being of the Puerto Rican people, American citizens.
Despite all the reforms that have been taken, Wall Street hedge funds
want more. They bought this debt at cheap prices, and now they want it
all. They are willing to inflate big suffering on 3.5 million American
citizens in order to reap massive profits. Sadly, congressional
Republicans decide.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds because I agree with her on this issue.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Governor of Puerto Rico is here--he
is sitting in the gallery--asking you to help those Americans who call
the island home.
While we are all going home for the holidays, for the 56 percent of
American children who live in poverty in Puerto Rico, this omnibus is
their Christmas present.
Shame on us. It is wrong. It is morally wrong. It will not cost one
dime to taxpayers. All we are asking is give Puerto Rico the ability to
restructure its public debt like any other municipality in this
country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to refer to
occupants of the gallery.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I listen with a great deal of attention to my good friend from New
York whenever she rises on this issue because, frankly, I know she is
much more knowledgeable about it than I am.
I do not pretend to be an expert in this area at all. It is not
something we handle normally on the Committee on Appropriations. It
would normally come through another committee.
I think, from what I have been told, that is actually what the great
concern is. I don't think there is much doubt that there is a serious
crisis here. Nobody debates that.
I think that the intent next year, as I understand it, is to try to
work through regular order and resolve this, as we should, because it
is a complex problem.
I think probably the decision at higher levels than mine was that
this is not the appropriate vehicle. That does not take away from my
friend's point that it is a serious problem. It needs the attention of
Congress. I look forward to working with her in that regard.
I do not think this was the right vehicle. I do think, actually,
there would have been many Members with many questions who would not
have had a chance to study it.
It just makes more sense to work its way through the committee. I
hope we do that. I think that is the right thing to do. I think my
friend was certainly well within her rights and very appropriately
raised an important issue that this House needs to turn its attention
to next year.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Subcommittee
on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies of
the Committee on Appropriations.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to
express great disappointment with the underlying tax extenders bill.
While the tax extenders bill makes the expansion of the child tax
credit permanent, along with the earned income tax credit and the
American opportunity tax credit, it fails to index the value of the
child tax credit to inflation. By the end of this decade, this will
result in 750,000 children falling back into poverty.
In the last big tax deal, Congress made the estate tax cut both
permanent and indexed to inflation. Who does this benefit? The children
of the millionaires and billionaires.
Yet, this bill fails to provide the same benefit to working families.
It means that 7,450 estates nationwide are the beneficiaries of the
estate tax. Nineteen million families and many, many more millions of
children would have benefited from indexing the child tax credit.
Congress has also provided for many more provisions of the Tax Code
to be indexed: income tax rates, the adoption credit, the earned income
tax credit, the low-income housing credit, the exemption amount for the
alternative minimum tax, the standard deduction, the overall limitation
on itemized deductions, cafeteria plans, transportation fringe
benefits, adoption assistance programs, the personal exemption, medical
savings account, the maximum deduction for interest on education loans,
foreign-earned income exclusion, estate tax exemption, gift tax
exemption, and the list goes on and on.
No family in the United States should have to struggle to raise a
child. By failing to index the value of the child tax credit, we allow
the benefit of the child tax credit to slowly erode away.
Too many hardworking people are still not earning enough to make ends
meet in this country. Middle class wages are stagnant or they are in
decline. We need to do whatever we can to support working people.
Working and middle class families cannot afford to continue to see the
value of their child tax credit decline.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of the 9/11
health provisions that are in the omnibus bill that we will be voting
on tomorrow. This is a major bipartisan victory.
In our committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we had the
health portion of the bill, which basically provides specialized health
care for those first responders and survivors of 9/11.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell how important this is. In my own State of
New Jersey, we have a clinic where we help about 5,000 mostly first
responders. They need specialized health care. Their problems get more
severe as time goes on.
What we are doing with this legislation is making this 9/11 health
program and victims compensation program permanent. It was authorized
for 5 years. There was a cap on it. The cap has now been removed. We
know that those first responders now will get the kind of specialized
health care that they need. I cannot emphasize how important this is.
{time} 1015
I want to thank my colleagues in the New Jersey delegation, the New
York delegation, and the Connecticut delegation on both sides of the
aisle in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
I think a lot of people think this is just a health insurance
program. That is not what this is about. This is a research program
that looks into those specialized diseases that many of these first
responders have been impacted by, and every day, we find more rare
diseases, more problems that these first responders are coming down
with. It is
[[Page H9387]]
a research program. It is also a treatment and diagnostic program for
them.
Thankfully, we now are going to have this as a permanent program so
that they will not have to worry about what kind of health care they
get, and they will not have to worry about where they go.
I also want everyone to understand that it doesn't matter where you
are in the country. There is a protocol that has been set up under this
9/11 health program so that somebody in Los Angeles, Florida, or
wherever they are, can go to the local hospital and be attended to.
So, once again, this is a major victory, and I appreciate the fact
that I have had the time to talk about it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my friend from New Jersey for
coming down here and making that point and, frankly, for his hard work
and continuous dedication on this important provision.
When this legislation was first offered a number of years ago, I was
very proud to vote for it. I thought it was the right thing to do. I
was happy to cosponsor its extension and being made permanent, and I
look forward to having the opportunity to vote for it in this context
again.
My friend is exactly right when he talks about the consequences of 9/
11 to the men and women who heroically went to the site trying to save
other Americans, risking their own lives and health, as we know, in the
long term. I dealt with a similar situation when I was secretary of
state in Oklahoma in the Oklahoma City bombing. I must say, we got
tremendous help from our friends in New York and New Jersey and other
parts of the country. We had rescue teams. We got wonderful help from
the United States in the aftermath of the disaster and the recovery. Of
course, the scale of 9/11 dwarfs anything that has ever happened in our
country.
So I am glad on this note: The two parties have sat down and worked
together and done the right thing. My friend from New Jersey has been a
leader in that effort every step along the way. This is something in
the bill that I think for even those who don't support the bill,
frankly, had we run it individually, I believe it would have passed on
this floor overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion, but it does come to
us in the context of this bill, and I hope many of my friends can
support the bill for a variety of reasons, and this would be one of the
chief amongst them.
Frankly, if they cannot, I would recognize again that, had this come
individually, I think even those who are opposed would have supported
this, because this is a uniting experience in American history. It is
something we are proud of. And we can't ever forget the sacrifices that
men and women on the ground at the site in the moment of enormous
danger made for their fellow Americans and the example they set for us
all. So the least we can do is to make sure that those who suffered on
our behalf are taken care of appropriately in the aftermath of this
great tragedy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I said at the very beginning, what we are presented with today, I
think, can be fairly characterized as a mixed bag. There are some very
good things that we can talk about in both these packages that we are
going to debate and vote on today and tomorrow, and there are some very
bad things. And I think Members are going to have to decide for
themselves whether the good outweighs the bad or the bad outweighs the
good.
But I think the one thing we should agree on is that we need to do
better in terms of process. We ought to consider all of these
appropriations bills individually. And even if the other body chooses
not to take those bills up, we ought to at least do our work here. We
only did half the job this year, and I regret that very, very much.
I will say on the good side of what is being presented today is the
chipping away at sequestration, which was a horrible idea. It has done
great damage to this country's economy, which has hurt a lot of
struggling people in this country. This package before us today begins
the process of chipping away at that.
I also believe that it is good that we are doing what we should have
done a long time ago, and that is provide certainty for the 9/11
responders. I want to thank the New York delegation, in particular, for
their steadfast insistence that we act on this. That is in this package
as well.
In terms of the tax extenders, there is great concern on our side
about the fact that a lot of this is all unpaid for. And yes, we do
care about deficits. I wish my colleagues on the other side cared more
about deficits.
Everybody is saying that they are committed to reducing or
eliminating our deficit. I will remind you we had a Democratic
President, Bill Clinton, in office when we actually eliminated the
deficit. And when the Republican, George W. Bush, got elected and we
had unpaid-for tax cuts--most for wealthy people--and unpaid-for wars,
we saw the elimination of the deficit balloon into these huge deficits.
And we are still trying to dig ourselves out of that mess to this very
day.
I would say that in the tax extender bill I am grateful we have made
permanent the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. These
are both important antipoverty initiatives. It will help a lot of
people whom this body has consistently and deliberately ignored for too
long.
I want to associate myself with the comments of my colleague from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who said that the child tax credit should
have been indexed for inflation. We could have done that. I think that
would have been even a better gesture toward trying to help people get
out of poverty. We didn't do that. That is a fight that we need to deal
with in the future.
Finally, I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so
that we can have an up-or-down vote to eliminate what I think is an
outrageous giveaway to Big Oil. It doesn't belong in this bill. We
should have that debate, and Members ought to be able to vote up or
down on it. The only way we are going to be able to do that, quite
frankly, is by eliminating the previous question so we can bring this
amendment to the floor.
Having said that, this is the final action of the Rules Committee--I
hope it is the final time the Rules Committee will be presenting on the
floor--and, again, I want to thank my colleagues for their work on
this. I want to especially thank the staff. I want to wish everyone a
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and I look forward to a more
productive 2016.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my friend. As always, it is a
privilege to have a debate and a discussion with him. I think his
characterization of this legislation as a mixed bag is a fair
characterization, but that is what I would expect in anything that is a
compromise--and particularly a compromise of this magnitude.
I take considerable pride, frankly, in all those involved in this.
They did come to some major agreements. Again, I think each of the
leaders of the House and of the Senate and certainly the President and
his team could point to things they don't like in this bill or things
they gave up or things they wanted that didn't make it. I know each of
them has a long list of disappointments.
But the bottom line is they found a way to get the job done. They
found a way to sit down, work across the institutional divide, the
partisan divide, their philosophical differences, and produce a good
bill.
I also want to agree with my friend on his concern about the process.
He is precisely right; this is not the best way to operate. I am glad
we got all these bills on the appropriations side through the full
committee. I am proud that we got six of them across the floor. I am
disappointed that our friends in the Senate, frankly, because of the
minority's opposition, didn't get any onto the floor. They did get,
though, in fairness, all 12 of theirs through committee. And that is
progress for both bodies. We have moved in a broad direction. But my
friend is right, we need to go further next year.
I am going to disagree with him a little bit about the deficit. He is
not
[[Page H9388]]
going to be surprised. Again, I point out the reality that for the last
4 years my friends were in the majority, the deficit went up every
single year; and since we have been in the majority, it has come down
every single year. I don't think those are coincidences. I think they
show who is committed.
I am also proud that we have put forward real reform proposals on
entitlement spending, the real drivers of the debt. I invite my friends
to actually offer proposals in that regard or to look at Mr. Delaney's
bill and my bill. I wish our side would do that, too, by the way,
because I think it offers us a reasonable way to get to reforming the
Social Security system, probably the most important single program that
we have in the country.
I am also going to disagree with my good friend on the oil export
ban, not surprisingly. In my part of the world, we are losing thousands
of jobs. The idea that you would restrict where Americans, who have
produced a product, can sell it to only one place, when no other
country in the world does that. This is something that shouldn't have
been in this bill. It should have never happened in the first place. It
should have gone 40 years ago.
Now, my friend mentioned Mr. Clinton and balancing the budget. I
think that is an appropriate thing to do. He somehow left out the part
that it was a Republican Congress working with President Clinton.
Frankly, President Clinton never ever submitted a balanced budget to
the Congress. Congress reduced the spending, and eventually we got
lucky. We had a growth spurt. We had a peace dividend. We had a lot of
things going on in the nineties. We had the baby boomers at the top of
their earning potential. They were not retiring at the rate of 10,000 a
day, as we have now.
So I would argue our problem is tougher, but my friend is right when
he makes the point that in a bipartisan fashion, we dealt with this
problem in the 1990s. We need to be bipartisan and deal it with again,
going forward.
Mr. Speaker, I think that as we conclude the legislative business of
this Congress, it is critical for us to end in a way that honors the
trust the American people have placed in us. Divided government is
difficult; however, it is a position that we have been placed in.
The last few weeks have been filled with legislative activity: a
long-term transportation bill, a fundamental overhaul of our elementary
education programs, a Customs bill which makes it easier for Americans
to trade overseas, and finally, both tax certainty for individuals and
businesses and the completion of the fiscal year 2016 appropriations
process.
None of these pieces of legislation have been perfect, from my
perspective or I am sure from my friend's perspective, but they have
all been better than the alternative we have faced. And they were, in
my estimation, the best deals we could negotiate. That is a testament
to the leadership of Speaker Ryan; Leader Pelosi; the committee
chairman, Mr. Rogers; Mr. Brady on our side, of their counterparts,
Mrs. Lowey; Mr. Shuster; the ranking member of Ways and Means, Mr.
Levin, one of my favorite Members.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I do want to end with one note. I want to
join my friend, my valued colleague in the Rules Committee, in our
joint hope that we do not meet again in that context. I want to wish
him and his family a Merry Christmas, as well as to all those in this
institution. And frankly, I want to congratulate all involved in this
on a job well done. It was a hard deal, a long negotiation, but one
where each side worked together.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 566 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 13. Rules Committee Print 114-39 is modified by
striking subsections (a) through (d) of section 101 of
Division O concerning oil exports.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate
``(Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon
rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
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 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244,
nays 177, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 701]
YEAS--244
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
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)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
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
Katko
[[Page H9389]]
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
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
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
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
NAYS--177
Adams
Aguilar
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
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
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)
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
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
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
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
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Collins (NY)
Cuellar
DeSantis
Deutch
Joyce
Kennedy
Kildee
Moore
Nadler
Payne
Rogers (KY)
Russell
{time} 1057
Ms. WILSON of Florida and Mr. GRAYSON changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois and Ms. GRANGER changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
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 240,
noes 185, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 702]
AYES--240
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
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)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
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
Jordan
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
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
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
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--185
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
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
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
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.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
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)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
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
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
[[Page H9390]]
NOT VOTING--8
Collins (NY)
Cuellar
DeSantis
Deutch
Joyce
Kennedy
Kildee
Nadler
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1105
Mr. MASSIE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
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.
____________________