[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 10, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H668-H676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3442, DEBT MANAGEMENT AND FISCAL
RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
3293, SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 609 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 609
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3442) to provide further means of
accountability of the United States debt and promote fiscal
responsibility. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to
the bill shall be in order except those printed in part A of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3293) to provide for greater accountability in Federal
funding for scientific research, to promote the progress of
science in the United States that serves that national
interest. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to
the bill shall be in order except those printed in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a rule and the
underlying bills, both of which will enhance accountability and create
better processes for our Federal Government.
Necessary legislation is what we are talking about today. Legislation
that will help the Federal Government not only in its processes, but
that will allow the American people to have confidence in what their
government does not only on their behalf, but for a better future for
the American citizens, including our children and grandchildren.
We are here today because these are important issues, and we are
addressing them. That is what Speaker Ryan wants this body to be doing.
Speaker Ryan wants us to bring our best ideas to the floor, to make
sure the American people understand what they are, to fully debate
them, and to have all the open processes that are necessary to make
sure that we are bringing to the American people the best ideas of
their elected representatives. That is why we are here today.
I also want to point out that the Rules Committee, of which I am
chairman, asked Members to submit their ideas and amendments regarding
these bills, and 14 amendments were made in order. That means that the
Rules Committee met, we looked, and we had discussions with Members
about the ideas that they have. Fourteen were made in order last night
by the Rules Committee, and I am proud of that.
As a result, our resolution provides that H.R. 3442, the Debt
Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2015, which was altered and
supported by the gentleman from Coppell, Texas, Congressman Kenny
Marchant, and H.R. 3293, the Scientific Research in the National
Interest Act, which was brought to the committee by the young chairman
of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Lamar Smith from San
Antonio, Texas, will both be considered today under a structured rule.
Mr. Speaker, I would normally run through my opening dialogue that I
would have about what is in these bills, why they are important, and
what they would do. But because of time considerations today, one of
our newest Members of Congress wants to speak. He has got a meeting in
a few minutes. I would like to ask him if he would at this time take
part in my opening statement.
I yield to the gentleman from Windsor, Colorado (Mr. Buck).
{time} 1315
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for years, our Nation has limped along from
debt crisis to debt crisis. Every time, we say to ourselves ``just a
little more spending today, and we will fix this mess tomorrow,'' but
tomorrow never seems to come, and the ocean of red ink gets deeper and
deeper with each passing day. Thanks to this ``spend now'' and ``save
never'' mentality, the national debt has soared to $19 trillion, and
there is no end in sight. The Federal Government has been overspending
for so long that we are financially bankrupt. If we continue to pass
this debt on to our children and grandchildren, we are also morally
bankrupt. We need a solution to our constant budget busting.
H.R. 3442 will help our Nation address this fiscal crisis. By
requiring the administration to testify before Congress,
[[Page H669]]
we are requiring them to bring realistic, serious solutions to the
table. We are calling on them to offer a plan for actually reducing our
debt, and--this is key--we are requiring these solutions before we
reach the point of no return.
What we have wrought in debt and deficit isn't merely a fiscal
challenge or an economic problem--it is poisonous to our human
potential. It is time for the Federal Government to start making the
same tough choices that small businesses and folks in Colorado are
making every day, and this bill is a good start.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The original intent also of a piece of legislation that we have goes
back to 1950. The legislation that created the National Science
Foundation was there at the time to support science that was in the
national interest. Unfortunately, the NSF has funded too many wasteful
projects under the ideas that have been presented to us by the Science,
Space, and Technology Committee, the purposes of which were probably
nebulous at best, which would be the argument that Chairman Lamar Smith
made with us, and which were, clearly, not necessarily in the national
interest.
We heard testimony that every single project that the National
Science Foundation handled was in the American people's best interest.
We think that our discussion with Members of Congress today will show
them that we need to change the wording to where the national interest
is obligatory to a proposal before a proposal is given. You have to
prove it is in the Nation's best interest to spend money. Examples of
such projects include $700,000 to create a climate change-themed
musical, $38,000 to study prehistoric rabbit hunting on the Iberian
Peninsula, and--perhaps my favorite of all--$605,000 to study why
people around the world cheat on their taxes.
Mr. Speaker, this is hard-earned money that was spent that I do not
believe was in the national interest. ``In the interest of the Nation''
means that it needs to be prioritized and that it needs to be something
that would produce an outcome that would, from the National Science
Foundation, benefit the American people.
H.R. 3293 directly benefits the American people by promoting greater
accountability--a mission statement, so to speak--in funding scientific
research, not only at the NSF, but that also ensures that the research
conducted is always in the national interest.
This is, I believe, a commonsense, bipartisan answer. Certainly,
Lamar Smith, as the chairman of the committee, brought forth the ideas
on a bipartisan basis to ensure that what we would do is not get in the
way of any projects that are currently out there. Instead, anything
that is in the future would have to subscribe to the conditions of the
national interest.
Reckless and mandatory spending has placed our national finances and
our economy--including our jobs, our infrastructure, and our future--in
peril. Today, the total debt is subject to the limit, which includes
Treasury securities held by Federal trust funds and other accounts,
which stand at over $19 trillion. Additionally, the Congressional
Budget Office projects that the 2016 deficit will be $544 billion. You
can see that we are not just at $19 trillion but that we are adding to
that.
Mr. Speaker, you know and I know, in just a matter of weeks, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Tom Price), the chairman of the Budget
Committee, will be bringing forth to this floor bills that address what
our year is going to look like in 2017. The President of the United
States has a chance to do this. Every year, the President submits his
budget. It is $1 trillion more a year in spending. It is more
government. It is more spending. It adds more things to our debt.
Republicans, since 2011--since we have been in the majority--have tried
to submit budgets that have held us in place; but by holding us in
place, which is the best we can do, it does not mean that we were
addressing creating a surplus, which would be required not to add to
that debt.
So where we are is back to the American people again with an
opportunity for them to understand our processes--a budget, an
opportunity to get to where we do not add to the debt. Yet what we are
here to do today is not the budget but to address what we do under a
circumstance when we have a debt limit by which we have met the
constitutional constraints, the legal constraints, and what we are
going to do in moving forward.
We are taking a bill that comes directly from Kenny Marchant, who is
a member of our Ways and Means Committee, who has spent a number of
years in thinking through how we can put a spotlight--how we can put
the light of day--on this issue to the point at which we can talk about
it, understand more about it, and do something about it. That is also
the second bill: the National Science Foundation, what is in the
national interest, and, clearly, looking at the debt.
If we are going to have a debt limit increase, how do we as Members
of Congress, under our constitutional powers, understand not just the
issue but also the obligation that we have when we take votes so that
we know what is at risk, what the plan would be, and, perhaps more
importantly, how we can work together with the administration--
Republicans and Democrats--to make sure we get a better answer.
Now, there is one last point that needs to be made, and I think it
was made yesterday in the committee, not just by the gentleman Tom
Cole, not just by Virginia Foxx from North Carolina, and not just by
me, which is that we don't know who the President is going to be next
year. We don't know who the Secretary of the Treasury is going to be
next year. The gentleman, the author of the bill, thinks that that is a
prime reason his legislation should be a bipartisan, commonsense piece
of legislation so that we are saying whoever it is has the authority
and the responsibility to come to Congress and give us the insight.
Let's work together so that we avoid debt, so that we avoid making a
mistake, and, mostly, so that we are on the same page together. That is
why we are here today, 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. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), my good friend and distinguished chairman of the Rules
Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for the
consideration of H.R. 3293, a bill to hamstring the National Science
Foundation and its gold standard review process; and I rise in strong
opposition to H.R. 3442, a misnamed debt management bill that provides
Congress with no new information about the debt limit and that does
nothing to actually prevent default.
Despite a promise from Speaker Ryan and House Republican leadership
for an open and deliberative process, this rule makes in order only 14
of the 47 amendments that were submitted on both pieces of legislation
to our committee--only six amendments for the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee's bill and eight for the debt limit bill.
Democrats on the Rules Committee offered an open rule so that both
Democratic and Republican Members could have an opportunity to make
their views known on this bill, but as has become the custom, the
Democrats voted for an open process, and every single Republican voted
against an open process.
Members should have the opportunity to offer their ideas on the House
floor, and we should be having a robust debate on these issues. Here is
a crazy idea, Mr. Speaker: Maybe, if we actually opened up the process
and allowed for a full debate, we could actually pass bipartisan
legislation that would move through the legislative process and then go
on to the President's desk where he would then sign it into law. Yet,
for the most part, my friends on the other side of the aisle don't seem
interested in working with Democrats to advance common goals that will
actually help the American people, and the legislation before us today
is no exception.
H.R. 3442 requires the Secretary of the Treasury to appear before
Congress and submit a report on the administration's debt reduction
proposals. I have got some good news for my friends. The
[[Page H670]]
Treasury Secretary already regularly meets with Congress to discuss the
debt limit, and the President offers proposals to address the debt and
the deficit in his annual budgets. I would say to my colleagues on the
Republican side that it is okay--you can ask questions. That is what
hearings are for. You can ask questions about the debt and deficit
reduction.
In fact, just yesterday, President Obama sent his fiscal year 2017
budget request to Congress, which included over $2.9 trillion in
deficit reduction over the coming decade--this on top of the $4
trillion to $5 trillion in deficit reduction already achieved since
2010. If my friends are interested in hearing about these proposals to
reduce our deficit, perhaps they should reconsider their unprecedented
and insulting decision to exclude the OMB from testifying on the
administration's budget proposal. Such a contemptuous attitude demeans
Congress and the American people.
In addition to its annual budget, the administration also provides
the information requested by H.R. 3442 in the form of the Mid-Session
Review, of the Daily Treasury Statement, of the Monthly Treasury
Statement, of the Monthly Statement of the Public Debt, of the
Schedules of Federal Debt, and of the Financial Report of the United
States Government.
The Treasury manages our debt, but it is Congress that holds the
power of the purse. It is our responsibility to raise the debt limit
when it is reached, and I would point out that it is the legislative
decisions made by Congress that determine the level of debt.
I say to my Republican friends, if you don't want to deal with the
issue of raising the debt limit, then don't accumulate all of these
bills. The debt limit debate is about making sure we live up to our
financial obligations, the obligations that this Chamber agreed to.
Last night in the Rules Committee, we had a debate about deficit
reduction and how to deal with the debt. Members on both sides of the
aisle offered suggestions on ways to reduce our deficit, and that is an
important discussion we should be having because it is a big issue. Yet
this bill is not about deficit reduction; it is not about trying to get
our debt under control; and it is not a serious attempt to help us
avoid future default. The Republican majority has threatened default on
at least three separate occasions: in 2011, when default was narrowly
avoided with the Budget Control Act; in 2013, when Republican extremism
led to a government shutdown, costing our fragile economy $24 billion
and 120,000 private sector jobs; and this past fall, when Democrats
helped to pass the bipartisan budget agreement despite opposition from
two-thirds of the Republicans in this Congress.
I would like to point out what is missing in this bill that we are
going to be talking about later on this week. The report required by
this legislation would exclude the most important information Congress
needs when the debt limit is reached, which is an analysis of the
catastrophic consequences of default. If this were a serious attempt to
address our debt, I would think that the majority would want to know
which bills the Treasury would need to stop paying if Congress failed
to raise the debt limit. Would veterans stop receiving their benefits?
Would Medicare providers stop being reimbursed? Would students stop
receiving Pell grants? The chairman of the Rules Committee said in his
opening statement that the American people want us to do something. I
agree.
{time} 1330
This is not doing something. This is trying to point the finger
somewhere else so that we can avoid responsibility for doing our job.
If we were serious about this issue, maybe we ought to think about
actually passing legislation that would help reduce our deficit and pay
down our debt. Maybe we ought to be talking about comprehensive
immigration reform. CBO says that we would save hundreds of billions of
dollars for our National Treasury if we actually did that, did
something positive to resolve our immigration crisis and, in doing so,
we would save all this money that could go to reducing our deficit.
Maybe one of the things we ought to be talking about here is actually
not passing tax breaks for wealthy people that we don't pay for because
that adds to the bills that we accumulate here in Congress. If you want
to give Donald Trump another tax cut, pay for it. That is all.
Maybe we ought to talk about dealing with the issue of these war
costs. I mean, we can't even come together and actually debate and vote
on an AUMF as these new wars are popping up all over the world.
By the way, if we did, maybe we could talk about the cost, which, by
the way, a big chunk of these war costs aren't even paid for. They are
put on our credit card. I mean, the only people sacrificing in these
wars are the men and women who we put in harm's way and their families.
The rest of us do nothing. We don't even ask the American people to pay
for it.
Well, here is an idea: if people don't want to pay for these wars,
maybe we ought not to go. Just putting them on our credit card should
not be an answer. Those are the kinds of things we should be talking
about here today if we were serious about getting our budget under
control.
Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is duplicative,
unnecessary, and a waste of time. It does nothing to prevent future
Republican threats of default, and I strongly oppose this effort.
This week, also, Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are bringing to the
floor H.R. 3293, another antiscience piece of legislation. Now, some
might call this a thinly veiled attempt by the majority to dictate what
the National Science Foundation spends their funding on, but there
really isn't even a thin veil trying to cover up what this is. This is
a blatant attempt to coerce the NSF into only funding projects that fit
into the Republican political messaging agenda.
The NSF receives upwards of 50,000 proposals a year. Out of all these
proposals, only about 20 percent end up receiving funding. The NSF puts
the applications through a rigorous process of peer review in order to
determine which proposals they will fund.
I would like to emphasize the fact that this is a peer review, not a
congressional review. It is a peer review. Congress does not review
these applications because the vast majority of us are not scientists.
I am not a scientist. I don't think many of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle are scientists.
The NSF review process is also designed to be confidential in order
to protect against any internal or external bias. Injecting
congressional interference and disruption into a well-functioning
process will have a drastically negative effect.
Now, it should come as no surprise that a big part of the Republican
majority's argument is that the NSF is focusing too much of its funding
on projects studying climate change. I tried to figure out what the
hook was, and I found that that is it.
I have said this here before, and I will keep saying it until we stop
debating these ridiculous bills. We know that climate change is real.
We see it. We live it. The scientific community overwhelmingly has
verified it. Climate change is not a theory. It is not a hoax. It is
not some silly fantasy. The NSF should be funding research that is
directed toward understanding and mitigating the effects of climate
change.
The majority on the Science Committee has been on a crusade to inject
itself into NSF's independent grant review process. The committee has
demanded an explanation on how roughly 40 studies could possibly serve
our national interests. Now, we have seen time and time again that
basic research leads to positive, life-changing outcomes never imagined
by researchers.
Congress certainly does not have the experience or the knowledge to
predetermine the future value of a research project. Just because the
title of a project doesn't sound particularly overwhelmingly impressive
doesn't mean it isn't, and we have a gazillion examples of that in the
research that has been done in the NSF.
It is best to leave the scientific review process in the hands of our
world-class scientists who resoundingly oppose efforts to interfere
with NSF's rigorous review process. I join them in strong opposition to
this bill.
Now, once again, Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor debating two bills
that are going nowhere. Each bill has received a
[[Page H671]]
veto threat from the White House because this is not serious
legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is just more political fodder for the
right wing of the Republican Party, sound bites for my friends on the
other side of the aisle to use while on the campaign trail to attempt
to sound like they are dealing with issues in a serious manner when, in
fact, they are not. It doesn't matter what year it is. The American
people elected us to solve problems, not pad Republicans' political
talking points.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule and the two
partisan pieces of legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee made in order more
amendments than Senator Harry Reid did as majority leader over 2
years--in just 1 day. In just 1 day, more amendments were made in order
in the United States House of Representatives. So I get it. I do.
I think I would be on the defensive, also, if I were my colleagues,
my friends that are Democrats, because what they are doing to this
country doesn't work, and they are defensive about it. So they view
anything that Republicans do, even on a bipartisan basis but doesn't
fit their narrative as, ``this is political.''
Well, balancing the budget is in the best interest of the American
people. Presenting realistic budgets--not a trillion dollars more in
spending and bigger government--is exactly the kind of policies that
Republicans do believe.
By the way, if they were really serious about trying to fix this
global warming, they wold look in their own backyard with home heating
fuel, which is diesel fuel, which they are putting all through the
Northeast to heat their homes. That is a huge contributor to global
warming, as opposed to clean, natural gas. They can make their own
decisions. But I would say back to them: I think you ought to measure
three times and have seen once, not just go accusing other people of
things.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, we had the gentleman
from Coppell, Texas, Kenny Marchant, a great member of our Ways and
Means Committee, come and testify about this bill, about how we look at
raising the debt limit. He spoke very passionately, and there was a lot
of common sense involved about how do we look at this issue and how do
we solve it.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant).
Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me
and his support on this issue. Also, I thank him for allowing the Rules
Committee to spend over an hour on this issue yesterday to hear both
sides of this issue as far as the debt ceiling goes.
Mr. Speaker, I can't go to a townhall meeting or even go to a
gathering of just a few people without the subject of the debt ceiling
coming up. My constituents on a regular basis, through emails, phone
calls, and letters, ask me the questions: What is Congress doing about
addressing the debt ceiling? Why do you lurch from year to year to year
about the debt ceiling? Why don't you ever look at the debt ceiling in
a comprehensive manner?
The debt is too high. When I introduced this bill in September, the
debt had reached $18.1 trillion. Today, it is over $19 trillion. If the
current law remains unchanged, the Congressional Budget Office predicts
that the Federal debt held by the public will exceed 100 percent of our
GDP in 25 years, and this is unsustainable.
The window to get a handle on the Nation's debt is closing very
quickly. We need to enact solutions to retire the debt before it is too
late. That is what the Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act is
all about.
This bill creates a new debt limit framework that places greater
attention on finding debt reduction solutions. It does so by injecting
transparency, accountability, and timeliness into the debt limit
process. The bill would allow Congress and the administration to take
comprehensive assessments of the debt and its drivers well before the
statutory debt limit is reached.
Each year since I have been in Congress, I can pick up the newspaper
one day and find that the Secretary of the Treasury announces that we
have reached our statutory debt limit and usually proclaims a date. In
this case, the statutory debt limit will be reached next March of 2017.
At that point, everybody seems to go about their business. There is no
particular action taken.
In fact, last month after that proclamation was made that we had
reached our statutory debt ceiling, 7 months went by without us
reaching the debt ceiling. How did that happen? Well, it happened
because the Secretary of the Treasury has the ability to implement
extraordinary measures. Now, if any committees in the Congress should
know what those extraordinary measures that he is using are going to be
or are, it is the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance
Committee.
So this bill very simply lays out a framework where, before the debt
ceiling is reached--and the Secretary of Treasury knows that--he has a
framework of up to 60 days to come and appear before the Ways and Means
Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, which could be a joint
meeting, and lay out for us when the debt ceiling will be reached--not
after we have reached the debt ceiling, but before we have reached the
debt ceiling--what extraordinary measures he will take once we have
reached that debt ceiling and when, in fact, he thinks we will actually
run out of money.
In that report, he will actually then lay out the administration's
plan on addressing that debt in the short term, in the midterm, and in
the future. So it is a very commonsense plan. It involves one very
specific meeting with these two jurisdictional committees with the
Secretary of the Treasury. The whole focal point of that meeting will
be to talk about the debt ceiling. That does not happen now.
We have dozens of reports that are online. We have dozens of
discussions besides this, but never statutorily is the Secretary of the
Treasury and the two jurisdictional committees required to meet and
discuss this. This is the great thing about this bill, the
implementation of this bill.
Like so many Americans, my constituents have watched with great
concern as the debt has skyrocketed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tipton). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. MARCHANT. If we share these concerns at all--and I know that many
of us do--we need to pass the Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility
Act.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Maybe I can clear all this up so we don't have to debate this bill.
The gentleman asked a question about extraordinary measures that the
Secretary of the Treasury could potentially use to deal with the debt
ceiling. I would just tell him that they are defined in statute, and we
will happily provide him a copy of the statute so that he can
understand that.
I would go back to what I said in my opening statement that, if we
are serious about dealing with our deficit and our debt, then maybe we
ought to be thinking in these terms, about actually not accumulating
all these bills that get us to the point where we have to raise the
debt ceiling.
I mean, we in Congress--not the administration, but we in Congress--
accumulate all these bills and all these financial obligations. Once
you do that, you have to pay for them. Our constituents, when they
accumulate credit card debt, they have got to pay it. They just can't
not pay it because they don't want to. So we have to start behaving
like adults here and understand that we need to pay our bills.
I would suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that
one way we might want to save some money and not add it to the deficit
or to our debt is to stop giving Donald Trump tax cuts that you don't
pay for.
{time} 1345
If you want to have tax cuts for wealthy individuals, fine. Pay for
them. Don't not pay for them. Stop subsidizing big oil companies in
this country.
Maybe there was a time when we first started exploring for oil that
you
[[Page H672]]
could make the case that taxpayers ought to be subsidizing oil
companies. Not anymore. Not with global warming and certainly not when
they are making zillions of dollars a year in profits. Maybe we could
take that money and put it toward deficit reduction.
Or maybe we could pay for these wars that everybody seems to want to
commit our young men and women to. If you want to go to war, you ought
to pay for it, not just put it on a credit card. If you are not
prepared to do that, then end these wars.
But just putting in danger the lives of our brave men and women and
just accumulating all these massive bills that there is no
accountability of I think is unconscionable.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I respect the motivation that underlies this
bill. We have got a debt in this country that is too large, and we have
got to address it, but this is a nonresponse.
The job of addressing the debt belongs to Congress. It can't be
outsourced. The Secretary of the Treasury has no more authority to
address the debt than the Secretary of Agriculture or Education or the
Democratic National Committee or the Republican Campaign Committee.
This is a job that has to be done, but it is our job to do it.
Asking the Secretary of the Treasury to come in and talk about when
that date certain will be on default when we set that date when we pass
budgets means that we are asking somebody else to do our job and asking
somebody who actually doesn't even have the authority to do the job.
That belongs to Congress.
Every time we vote on either a tax cut or an appropriation bill, it
has clear implications for how that will impact on the debt ceiling. It
is debatable because there are fluctuations as to when we will hit that
date.
But it is absolutely certain that, when we appropriate money or we
pass tax cuts, in one case spending will go up, and in the other case
revenues will go down.
What we have done is gone along in a kind of la-la land where we
think we can cut taxes, we can raise spending, and then we are
astonished when a year or so later there is actually a bill that comes
due.
This is not the debt management bill. It is not the fiscal
responsibility bill. It is the debt mismanagement and fiscal
irresponsibility bill.
Think about the things that we have done. Mr. McGovern has been
talking about it. But we had a war in Iraq, a trillion dollars. Nobody
paid for that. We voted to spend a trillion dollars on tax cuts. We can
have an argument about tax policy. But you know what, revenues went
down.
Congress voted to spend $800 billion on the prescription drug
program, something that had bipartisan support. Not paid for. And then
just a few weeks ago we passed tax extenders that are going to reduce
revenues by $2 trillion.
Actions have consequences. The consequences are ones that are
inevitable and foreseeable as a result of the actions of this Congress.
This Congress, instead of assuming its responsibility, tries to
outsource it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. WELCH. To someone else, it is a dodge. That is all it is. It is
us trying to fool the American people with a game of three-card Monte
where we are pretending that the problem that we are decrying had
somehow mysteriously evolved out of nowhere.
I respect the concern of the authors of this bill about our debt.
What I don't respect is the failure of Congress to address it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the reason why we are doing this is
because one day 2 years ago the President, through the Treasury, wrote
off $339 billion in one day. That is not responsible. It didn't happen
in one day.
They play games at Treasury. The President of the United States plays
games with this issue. Now it sounds like my colleagues are, also. This
is an honest attempt to have a dialogue.
Regardless of who is going to be President or whoever is going to be
Treasury Secretary next year, we want to know what kind of games or
what kind of straightforward business they are going to operate.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Butler, Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), one of the most exciting young
Members of this Congress.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for referring to me
as young and exciting. I am going to phone my wife to let her know that
is the case.
Mr. Speaker, I come before you today because I am in strong support
of H.R. 3442. I think that sometimes we make this a Democratic versus
Republican issue. Responsibility is not a political issue. It is a
moral issue.
Irresponsibility is the problem that we have. I wish we could go away
from making political talking points into making solid policy positions
that say: okay, fine, if we are going to increase our debt ceiling,
tell me why you are going to get there.
I come from the private sector. There are many times in my life I
have had to go to lenders and tell them I need to borrow money. The
first thing they would say is: give me your financials; let me look at
the way you are running your company; let me see about what you are
doing; then we will make a decision.
Then they would come back to me and say: you know what, I am looking
at what you are asking for, and you definitely need an injection of
capital; but my question is what is your turnaround plan so you are not
back here in 6 months or 12 months asking for more money on a failed
model.
The people's House, the Congress, is made up of both Republicans and
Democrats. More importantly, it is made up of Americans. We are looking
at a year when the tax revenues are the highest they have ever been--
$3.25 trillion--yet, we continue to spend $3.7 trillion to $3.8
trillion.
Now people look at that and their eyes kind of roll back in their
head. They say: I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
So you reduce it down to this, which I think is the most effective
way of explaining it. Hardworking American couples sit down at the
kitchen table. It is kitchen table economics. It is not all this other
stuff. It is not all these hieroglyphics.
The husband and the wife talk and say: you know what, Honey, we had a
great year; I was able to bring home $32,500; what I want you to do is
to go out and spend $37,500 or $38,000.
They would look at each other and say: wait a minute, you told me you
had a great year--and you did--but you want me to spend even more money
than you brought in.
We constantly tell the American people: you are going to have to
tighten your belts; you are going to have to live within your means.
And then, because we don't have to, we go out and borrow and raise the
debt ceiling.
Think about that couple that is increasing their debt load year after
year after year--deficit spending--and we are crowing about the fact
that you know what, we have cut our deficit spending by half a trillion
dollars this year. Aren't we doing well?
My question is: so where does that deficit spending go? It goes onto
your long-term debt. You are digging the hole so deep that you will
never be able to climb out of it, but you are feeling good about it
because you were able to satisfy whatever your needs were at that
moment.
That is not only irresponsible, it is unconscionable. More than that,
it is immoral for people to sit in this House as representatives of the
American people who have been given the authority to tax, but they have
also been given the responsibility to spend that hardworking American
taxpayer's dollar.
More importantly, once you have authority and once you have
responsibility, you have got to be accountable not just to that person
in the mirror, but, in my case, the 705,687 people that I represent in
western Pennsylvania.
Now, they are not all Republicans. They are not all Democrats. They
are not all Libertarians. They are not all Independents. But they are
all hardworking American taxpayers.
Why do we have to reduce this down to a political-talking-points
issue instead of talking about what is fundamentally sound
economically?
You cannot spend your way out of debt. You cannot continue to borrow
[[Page H673]]
irresponsibly and say: well, we have the power to do it. So when we ask
the Secretary of the Treasury who else would you go to, that is who is
responsible for it.
I don't care who is sitting in there. I don't care who is in the
White House. I care about sound, fundamental fiscal policy that
protects this country going forward, not only those that are with us
right now, but those that came before us and those that are going to
come after us.
We are putting ourselves in a position that is totally going to be
unrecoverable. Why would we knowingly sit here and think if I can pin
the blame on somebody else from the political opposite of me, I will
somehow win an election?
Is it really that important to win an election and lose the country?
Is it really that important to have a political talking point that
makes you feel good about what you said so you can go back home to
somebody and say: you saw what I did on the floor; right?
I would hope that the constituents would say: yes, I did. You just
put me deeper in debt. You made it impossible for me to plan for my
future. You made it impossible for us to remain one of the strongest
countries in the world because debt will eliminate you. I don't care if
it is a person. I don't care if it is a business. I don't care if it is
a State or a country.
We are quickly approaching the point of no return. To sit here and
try to make it a political battle instead of survival for the United
States of America is totally irresponsible. More importantly, it is
immoral.
This is not a political battle. This is a fight for the future of our
country. This is a fight for sustainability in the greatest country the
world has ever known.
I do not think that any of us should ever turn our back on our
responsibility because it just wasn't politically right.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I have the greatest
respect for my colleague from Pennsylvania, but the reason why we
oppose this is because it does nothing.
Actually, it attempts to pin the blame on the Secretary of the
Treasury, but the reality is--and I want to repeat this for my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle--that Congress' decision on
revenue and spending policies ultimately determine the level of debt
and when the debt limit is reached. It is our responsibility.
What we object to is that, instead of debating concrete issues to
reduce our deficit and reduce our debt, we are involved in this kind of
debating a nonissue, a bill that does nothing, that will do nothing to
reduce our deficit, reduce our debt, and is a complete waste of time.
At this point, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Massachusetts
for his leadership.
I want to say to my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), whom I
respect and admire, this isn't like a simple, homespun, sit around the
kitchen table and work this out and be responsible in paying our bills.
I wish it were.
That homespun couple in Pennsylvania or my district in Virginia can't
start a war that is unpaid for in Iraq, can't decide to give wealthy
people a tax cut that is unpaid for, can't run the U.S. economy into
the ground that costs trillions of dollars in additional debt because
of policy choices made in this Congress, not by the Secretary of the
Treasury.
It was Republican Vice President Cheney who actually said in the
midst of all of that that debts no longer matter.
So we are glad to see the new-found religion here on the floor of the
House with our friends on the other side of the aisle, who are now once
again concerned about debt, debt they helped accumulate to an obscene
degree.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to not only that bill, but to the
Scientific Research in the National Interest Act bill.
It comes as no surprise to my constituents in Virginia that the most
anti-environmental Congress--the House majority is now attempting to
tell the National Science Foundation how they ought to do and award
Federal research grants based on what Congress deems worthy.
The House majority has been open about its climate denialism and
candid about its outright political agenda against scientific fact. The
very scientific community that we should trust to understand and
forecast the effects of manmade global climate change is substituted in
this bill by the United States Congress, a bunch of politicians.
This bill is a solution in search of a problem. It threatens the
National Science Foundation's gold-standard merit-review process that
has resulted in groundbreaking research over the years, including
medical, technological, agricultural, and public health advancements.
Even worse, how are we to explain the majority's decision to exclude
climate change, one of the most pressing global challenges we face, as
one of the bill's seven national interest criteria? It is not even in
there.
I offered an amendment that would have ensured climate change is
deemed in the national interest. The Republican majority would not even
allow that amendment to come to this floor for debate.
The NSF is helping to lead research in global climate change. For
example, it was an NSF grant that launched a program in my district at
George Mason University that will help television weather forecasters
better inform and explain to viewers how climate change will affect us
and those communities.
{time} 1400
In 2013, Mr. Speaker, I visited a place called Ny-Alesund in
Svalbard, Norway. This is the northernmost research installation in the
planet in the Arctic Circle and a leading research and monitoring
station that serves many of our international partners, including
Norway, Italy, Japan, China, and the Netherlands.
I saw firsthand on that visit the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice and
rapidly retreating glaciers. The research NSF funds there will have
environmental and geopolitical benefits to the U.S., and we should be
expanding not retracting on those commitments. I ask: How is it that
research is not in the national interest?
This destructive bill will have a chilling effect on our research
community, stifling ambitious research necessary to a 21st century
future.
Sadly, once again, the Republican majority insists on misinformation
and belief over empirical evidence and science.
I urge rejection of the bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for
yielding, and I appreciate the chairman of the Rules Committee bringing
this rule to the floor to allow for consideration of H.R. 3293, the
Scientific Research in the National Interest Act.
H.R. 3293 requires each National Science Foundation public
announcement of a grant award to be accompanied by a nontechnical
explanation of the project's scientific merits and how it serves the
national interest. This written justification affirms the National
Science Foundation's determination that a project is worthy of taxpayer
support based on scientific merit and national interest.
The bill sets forth that NSF grants should meet at least one of seven
criteria that demonstrate a grant is in fact in the national interest.
These national interest areas are in the original enabling legislation
that established the National Science Foundation and its mission or are
part of the National Science Foundation mission today. These criteria
are:
Increased economic competitiveness in the United States;
Advancement of the health and welfare of the American public;
Development of an American STEM workforce that is globally
competitive;
Increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with
science and technology in the United States;
Increased partnerships between academia and industry in the United
States;
Support for the national defense of the United States; or,
Promotion of the progress of science in the United States.
These seven national mission areas encompass the overriding needs of
[[Page H674]]
America to which the scientific enterprise can contribute and advance.
Under this umbrella, many scientific disciplines and research areas can
and do receive support and flourish.
The amendments that were not made in order by the Rules Committee
would have opened up this NSF national mission statement to include
every pet project, earmark, or political point that Members on the
other side could think of. In fact, the explicit, line item-directed
subjects that Members wanted to add to the list of ``what is in the
national interest'' are already covered by one of the seven categories
in the bill.
We welcome a fair and open debate on the merits of the bill, and
several amendments were made in order that allow us to have that
debate. These include amendments by the ranking member of the House
Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, as well as five other Democratic amendments.
This rule allows us to have that fair debate, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Every criticism I have heard in the last few minutes about this bill
could be addressed if those who oppose the bill just took the time to
read the bill. It is only three pages long. You can probably read it in
3 minutes. They would see that their opposition has no foundation
whatsoever.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 8
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If
we can defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up a bill that would help prevent mass shootings by
promoting research on the causes of gun violence, making it easier to
identify and treat those prone to committing these acts.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I oppose both H.R. 3442 and H.R.
3293.
Again, on H.R. 3442, if we are serious about deficit and debt
reduction, then we ought to be talking about substance and something
real, not some sound bite where Members of the House can point to the
administration to say it is all their fault.
The reality is, it really is the fault of all of us, when you come
down to it, because this is the place where spending decisions are
made, where tax policy is made.
If my colleagues do not want to raise the debt ceiling, then don't
accumulate all these bills. It is Congress that does this. When you
accumulate all these bills and you have to raise the debt ceiling, it
is irresponsible to all of a sudden say that we don't want to do it and
then to default on our debt.
As I mentioned before, back in 2013, when Republican extremism
actually shut the government down, it cost our economy $24 billion and
120,000 jobs.
Now, $24 billion may not seem like a lot to my Republican friends,
but I assure you that it all starts to add up. Those 120,000 jobs that
were lost is all lost revenue coming into the government which would go
to paying down our deficit and debt.
If you really want to deal with this issue, then let's talk about
things like paying for these wars that no one seems to want to pay for.
Let's talk about not enacting tax breaks and tax cuts for wealthy
individuals and not paying for it. Let's talk about reeling in some of
these excessive subsidies to Big Oil and to other big corporate
interests in this country. Let's talk about passing comprehensive
immigration reform, which, again, the CBO has said would save us
hundreds of billions of dollars that we could put toward getting our
fiscal house in order.
Those are real things. This is just talk for the sake of talk. I
guess maybe it is a good press release; but, quite frankly, I think our
time would be better spent doing something else.
Again, on H.R. 3293, the so-called Scientific Research in the
National Interest Act, I take great exception to those who question the
integrity of the NSF. The National Science Foundation has integrity, in
my opinion, beyond question. The work that they do is extraordinary.
The work that they do leads to all kinds of benefits not only for the
people in this country, but for the environment and people all over the
world.
I think the scientists who work there are having their reputations
questioned by the introduction of this legislation, never mind us even
considering it here today. I think you are diminishing the incredible
work that they do.
I get it. For some reason, my Republican colleagues can't admit that
we have a thing called climate change going on around the world. So any
time anybody talks about climate change, you go after whatever
department or agency it is. You attack them. You try to cut their
funding. You try to question their integrity.
Well, I hate to tell my Republican friends that climate change is
real. The overwhelming science says it is real. If you don't appreciate
that, maybe you ought to go back to school and take a science class.
When we talk about the lack of accountability and the lack of proper
stewardship of what we are supposed to be doing here, that is one area
where I think we have let the American people down; indeed, the world
community.
We are sitting here debating whether it is even an issue--which the
American people can't believe--while things continue to get worse.
I would say to my Republican friends: admit it; climate change is for
real. You are on the wrong side of public opinion. When you try to
claim it is a hoax, you are on the wrong side of the scientific
community and you are on the wrong side of history.
One final thing, because I couldn't help but take note that my
colleague from Texas kind of took a jab at Massachusetts over home
heating oil. I would say to the gentleman a couple of things. One,
Massachusetts is leading the Nation in terms of investments in
renewable and green energy. I am really proud of what my State is
doing.
I would say one other thing to the gentleman from Texas, and that is
that his State--Texas--generates 10 times more emissions from heating
oil, compared to Massachusetts. So I would urge him to get his State's
emissions under control for the sake of our planet.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The first thing I would like to say to the gentleman is that Texas is
bigger than France and Texas is bigger than Massachusetts. In fact, we
have economic output. We have lots of people working. We have economic
prowess in Texas.
We do have more output of what might be carbon. We do. We also had
$290 billion worth of economic activity that we sent overseas. Texas
helps the United States of America float its boat because we have jobs,
we have lower taxes, we have great schools, we have people that enjoy
living where they live, and we have people that take responsibility.
Across the board, Texas is a great place to live. Texas does, as you
have heard many times, move our country in a direction to more freedom,
Mr. Speaker. What we are talking about is freedom. With that freedom
comes responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, why we are here today--exactly as I started to say in
the very beginning--is that our Speaker, Paul Ryan, has challenged I
think all of Congress, but in particular this Republican majority, to
bring forth good ideas that address the issues, thoughts, and answers
about the problems that the United States Congress perhaps is
responsible for and perhaps the United States sees that we need to
start talking about what our future is going to be.
When he was the chairman of the Budget Committee and the Ways and
Means Committee, Speaker Ryan talked about growing our economy. I know
our friends want to raise taxes. I know the President of the United
[[Page H675]]
States wants to also, now that the energy costs are down, stick them
back up and stick the American people with a $10 a barrel tax. I know
that what they want is more and more and more spending. They will get
their chance with the budget when it comes in a trillion dollars higher
in a year than what we are spending right now. That is their vision.
What we are talking about today is our vision, Speaker Ryan's vision,
and the Republican majority's vision. And what is that? We would like
to put in place an agreement. We would like for it to be a bipartisan
vote. We already have bipartisan support. And that is so that we could
say that, regardless of who is President and Secretary of the
Treasury--right now, I don't know who it is going to be; I really
couldn't even guess--we, as a body, make sure that we are focusing on
what this is going to look like at the time. The gentleman from
Massachusetts was very clear to say we already know all these things,
but we don't.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleague to support this rule and the
underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 609 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3926) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
better understanding of the epidemic of gun violence, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3926.
____
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. SESSIONS. 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 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 609, if
ordered; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 4470.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 180, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 65]
YEAS--237
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
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)
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)
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
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--180
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
[[Page H676]]
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
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
Kennedy
Kildee
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)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
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--16
Castro (TX)
Duckworth
Fincher
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Kelly (IL)
Mullin
Quigley
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Speier
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1434
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 236,
noes 178, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 66]
AYES--236
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)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
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)
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
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
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
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--178
Adams
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)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
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
Kennedy
Kildee
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)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
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--19
Aguilar
Castro (TX)
DeLauro
Duckworth
Fincher
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Kelly (IL)
LaMalfa
Mullin
Quigley
Rothfus
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1440
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.
Stated for:
Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 66, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
____________________