[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.

                          ____________________