[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 91 (Thursday, June 9, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3586-H3596]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5325, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 771 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 771
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. 5325) making appropriations for the
Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2017, 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 Appropriations. 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 for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. No amendment to
the bill shall be in order except those printed in 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.
[[Page H3587]]
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 5325 pursuant to this
resolution, section 3304 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 11
shall not apply.
{time} 1315
Point of Order
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against
House Resolution 771 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act.
The resolution, in waiving all points of order against consideration
of the bill, waives section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act,
thereby causing a violation of section 426(a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas makes a point of
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the
gentleman from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes
of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, the Chair
will put the question of consideration as the statutory means of
disposing of the point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this year's appropriations process
has been rocky to say the least. That trend is poised to continue this
evening and tomorrow as the House considers the fiscal year '17
Legislative appropriations bill.
Buried in this bill's committee report is controversial language that
forces the Library of Congress to continue using the derogatory term
``illegal alien'' in its subject headings. Mr. Speaker, I will explain
the background on this issue.
Last month, the Library of Congress announced proposed changes to its
subject headings that would replace the term ``aliens'' with
``noncitizens'' and replace the term ``illegal aliens'' with
``noncitizens'' and ``unauthorized immigration.''
It is not unusual for the Library of Congress to make changes to its
subject headings. In fact, each year it makes thousands of such
changes. In 2015 alone, there were 4,934 new subject headings that were
added. An example of one such change that the Library has made in the
past was to replace the word ``Negro'' with a less offensive word.
This sort of evolution of the Library's subject headings is not
unprecedented by any stretch of the imagination. However, what is
unprecedented is Congress' weighing in on these changes. In fact, the
Library has confirmed that this is the first time that Congress will
have legislated on any of its subject headings in the history of the
Library of Congress. So never before in history has Congress so much as
communicated with the Library of Congress about its subject headings,
let alone introduced legislation concerning them.
With this bill, that is all about to change. House Republicans are
poised to make history by--for the first time ever--interfering in the
Library of Congress' subject headings process to preserve a prejudicial
term.
Now, I am not going to lump everybody on the other side of the aisle
together on this issue. When this bill was marked up in the
Appropriations Committee, Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz introduced
an amendment that would remove the ``alien''-related language from the
legislation's committee report. In fact, four Republicans in the
committee joined Democrats to vote in favor of that measure, and the
amendment only failed by one vote.
So there is bipartisan consensus on this matter, and it deserves
debate and a vote in the full House of Representatives so that all of
us can take a vote where, for the first time--again, this is the first
time in its history--where the Congress is legislating on a subject
heading of the Library of Congress, and it is to force the Library of
Congress to continue using the word ``illegal alien'' rather than
allowing them to do their job and, as they were considering doing,
retiring that term.
Yesterday, three amendments were presented to the Rules Committee
that would allow this to occur. Astoundingly, the Rules Committee
rejected all three of those amendments. In other words, they would have
allowed us to debate this and take a vote on it, but the Rules
Committee rejected all three of these amendments, preventing a vote on
this issue on the House floor.
As I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, the language in the committee
report that has sparked this debate refers to a portion of U.S. Code
that contains the term ``alien.'' I have introduced legislation that
would remove ``alien'' from U.S. Code in instances where it refers to
immigrants to this Nation. My bill, which is H.R. 3785, the CHANGE Act,
would replace the terms ``alien'' and ``illegal alien'' in Federal law
with the terms ``foreign national'' and ``undocumented foreign
national.''
Let me be clear about why I am doing that. First, these folks may not
be American citizens, but they are human beings. They are not people
from outer space. When we think of the term ``alien,'' we don't think
of human beings; we think of people that are from somewhere else.
The word ``illegal alien'' has also been used oftentimes--although
not by everyone--in a pejorative way, in a way that is meant to be
pejorative and offensive. It stigmatizes immigrants in this Nation and
diminishes the quality of discussion around immigration issues in the
United States. When ugly, belittling names are used to describe groups
of people, those terms can make discrimination seem okay.
There is precedent for changing language in our laws as words'
meanings evolve over time. For example, our Federal code previously
used the terms ``lunatic'' and ``mentally retarded.'' Those words have
since been taken out.
Just last month, President Obama signed into law a bill that I
believe we can all be proud of, which was introduced by my colleague,
Congresswoman Grace Meng of New York, that removes the terms
``Oriental'' and ``Negro'' from Federal code. It is also time for
``alien'' to be added to the list of words we remove from Federal code.
So I urge my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, to stand up
for the dignity of all people who call America home and vote in favor
of the CHANGE Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I understand that my friend has great
passion on this issue. What I love about this Chamber is that it allows
people to come and express their passions.
But I serve on the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee has original
jurisdiction of the unfunded mandate point of order, and it is designed
to prevent Congress from imposing unfunded mandates--rules that we are
not going to pay for--on outside institutions: State governments, local
governments, and tribal governments.
By definition, this is the legislative branch appropriations bill. It
funds the Library of Congress. We are absolutely funding what this bill
is asked to do. To debate the merits of the underlying language is
absolutely legitimate debate. But to use this point of order, which is
almost a textbook definition of what this point of order does not apply
to, is a dilatory tactic, Mr. Speaker.
I would ask that we vote to dispense with that, oppose this point of
order, and get on to the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would make two points. The first
is that this is an unfunded mandate because the Library of Congress was
already well on its way to changing this term. Now, Congress is
instructing it that it cannot do that. There is no way that money is
not spent in following the instruction of Congress. So I disagree with
the gentleman. This is an unfunded mandate.
To the issue itself, there was no argument from the other side that
these words are pejorative, that this word is an anachronism. And, by
the way, Mr. Speaker, this word is used in Federal code and applies to
people who are here who are undocumented and also people who are here
legally who are residents. So this is not only an issue of the
undocumented. This is an issue of immigrants generally.
[[Page H3588]]
I know that, over the years, ours has been a very devout nation, a
nation of faith, and that includes many of the people in this body. I,
for example, have had an opportunity to visit with the faith study
group that meets once a week that talks about the issues of their own
personal faith, their own journeys, and the work that they do for their
constituents.
As I think about my own district, which is 64 percent Hispanic in San
Antonio, it is a town whose creativity, entrepreneurism, and spirit has
been infused by the immigrant spirit. These are hardworking, often
humble people who don't ask for much from their government, who work
hard to provide for their families and who hardly ever will be heard to
complain. Most of them, obviously, are documented; some are not.
But those people who are not and those who are considered resident
aliens are human beings, and I believe that our faith would tell us
that God considers those folks human beings, not illegals. I don't
imagine that God thinks of those people as illegal. They are
fundamentally human beings, and they should be respected.
They are not American citizens. We understand that, and there has
been much debate over the last few years about passing comprehensive
immigration reform or at least considering it here on the House floor.
That hasn't happened yet. But I do think that each of us can at least
extend some modicum of respect to these people.
Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in voting for the
CHANGE Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, I applaud my friend for coming down here and
speaking on the underlying bill. I think it is very important that we
have the conversations that we will have on the underlying bill. But it
is also important, in the name of good government, to use these points
of order for the purpose these points of order were intended to be
used.
The Library of Congress cannot spend one penny except for those
dollars provided in the underlying legislation. Yes, the underlying
legislation has mandates for the Library of Congress, but those
mandates are funded because that is the only way the Library of
Congress can be funded.
This is an incredibly important point of order, Mr. Speaker. The
power that we have in this body to dictate to State, local, and tribal
governments what they must do and then refuse to pay the bill is a
dangerous practice that this institution recognized when it created
this point of order to avoid.
I hope my friends on both side of the aisle will continue to bring up
unfunded mandates points of order when they are applicable. But I
implore my colleagues: Do not take a vote to suggest that a point of
order designed to prevent us from putting unfunded costs on local
governments should apply when we are funding the responsibilities of
the Federal Government. That perverts the intent, and it undermines our
ability to use this point of order effectively in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I urge us to allow the House to continue our business
for the day. Vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the
resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the point of order
has expired.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 170, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 283]
YEAS--231
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
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
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
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
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
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
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
NAYS--170
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
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
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--32
Barletta
Black
Blumenauer
Brownley (CA)
Capuano
Costa
Cummings
Duffy
Ellison
Ellmers (NC)
Farr
Fincher
Gabbard
Gutierrez
Hardy
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hinojosa
Hultgren
Lee
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
Payne
Peterson
Price, Tom
Rice (SC)
Rooney (FL)
Sires
Takai
Welch
{time} 1350
Mses. EDWARDS and WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Mr. SHUSTER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
[[Page H3589]]
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
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 Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, the buzz you hear around this Chamber, I
suspect, is enthusiasm for the underlying bill. This is the legislative
branch appropriations bill for FY 2017, and it is the single piece of
legislation that enables all of the constituent services that go on
from this institution. I want to say that again. Not one act of
constituent service would go on anywhere in this country but for this
underlying text. It is the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, led by my
friend and colleague from Georgia, cardinal Tom Graves.
They do great work on the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, Mr.
Speaker. It is no surprise to my colleagues in this Chamber that the
House Appropriations Committee has been hard at work in producing those
12 appropriations bills that we are required to pass every year. Our
success record in getting that done as a body has been spotty, but the
success record of our committee in getting that done has been historic.
Even more, unlike many bills that come to this floor, the
Appropriations Committee has said: Do you know what? We did the very
best that we could do, but we welcome the input and counsel from our
colleagues because we all have different experiences; we all come from
different parts of the country; and we all have something to add.
So this bill, Mr. Speaker, makes in order 13 different amendments--
seven offered by Republicans, six offered by Democrats--so that we can
improve this bill and discuss this bill even more.
Among the top line items in the bill is the funding for our Capitol
Police. No more so than this year have folks had the Capitol Police on
their minds. The service that those men and women provide is
indispensable in this Chamber, and I would argue, more than it is
valuable to us and more than it is valuable to our constituents who
visit this Chamber every day throughout the year, it is valuable to the
families of those who send their loved ones to work here each and every
day.
This bill funds the Architect of the Capitol. We talk so much about
spending reductions and trying to be responsible. I am so proud of the
spending record in terms of those reductions on inefficient programs
that this Chamber has generated, but we have priceless American
treasures right here in this building. I recall when you could see the
water running down from the Capitol dome as it destroyed those precious
American, historical treasures. So this bill funds the Architect of the
Capitol so that we are not a penny-wise and pound-foolish in terms of
our obligation to tend to America's treasures.
This bill funds the Government Accountability Office. I dare say
there is not a Member of Congress in this institution who hasn't had a
constituent ask about a GAO report, who hasn't had occasion on his own
to ask our auditing agency--our accounting office--to do a study of the
best ways to use our resources, to make use of the limited resources
that we have. They provide an incredibly valuable, nonpartisan service
so that we can do the very best for our constituents back home.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is funded at a level that is lower than the
level was when I arrived in this Chamber. It is lower than the level
was in 2009 and in 2010. I think that is important, because I think
thrift really does begin at home. Throughout every year that I have
been in this institution--I am now in year 5--we have absolutely gone
after inefficient programs elsewhere in the government. We have
absolutely tried to make a difference in curbing that tidal wave of
debt that threatens the next generation, but we have started here in
each and every bill.
Mr. Speaker, folks don't know it. The newspapers always carry the
stories of excess on Capitol Hill. I don't know where they find those
excess stories. I will tell you that the allotment for the spending of
my office--for all of the constituent service that we do--is less than
was allotted 10 years ago. Inflation corrodes it, and the job market
erodes it. Time and time again, every dollar buys less, as every
American family knows. We have committed ourselves as an institution to
do more with less--thrift beginning at home.
There is a modest increase in this bill from the last cycle to deal
with those issues, like our Capitol Police, like the Library of
Congress, like the preservation of the Capitol. I support all of those
underlying measures, and I support the rule by which we are bringing
this measure here again. Thirteen amendments are made available by this
rule. If we pass the rule, we will then move to the underlying bill,
vote on those 13 amendments, and move to final passage.
I urge all of my colleagues to support both the rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1400
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
This legislation, as he indicated, provides $3.48 billion for the
House of Representatives and joint operations of Congress. That is a
$73 million increase over the current year's levels, but more than $150
million below the President's request.
This legislation funds the salaries and expenses for the House of
Representatives, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office,
the Architect of the Capitol, Government Accountability Office, and the
Library of Congress.
Today is June 9. Nearly 2 months have passed since my friends in the
majority sailed past the statutory deadline for passing a budget
without even looking back. Nearly 1 month has passed since House
Republicans began considering appropriations bills without first
agreeing to top-line spending levels.
Republicans made passing a budget a top priority this year. They
insisted that we would return to regular order. I really wish the
American public understood the ``regular order'' concept. Yet here we
are working without a roadmap and, instead, passing new rules to stifle
debate on the House floor on controversial issues like equal rights.
But I will get to that in a bit, Mr. Speaker. For now, I will just
say it is disappointing because, instead of considering appropriations
bills funding critical investments for American families and
communities, the House majority has again chosen to take care of
itself. The partisan mishmash we are discussing today is no different.
Here is an example: This legislation forces the Library of Congress
to continue to use the pejorative term ``illegal alien'' in its subject
headings. Mr. Speaker, in another life, as a member of the judiciary, I
refused to use that term when discussing persons that were before me. I
can't help but laugh at the absurdity of this.
We--and I mean Congress--can't have a conversation about
comprehensive immigration reform, yet we are forcing the Library of
Congress to readopt politically charged rhetoric. For what? How is this
a priority? The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill is certainly not
the appropriate place for a political debate on immigration.
This legislation continues to fund the Energy and Commerce select
panel to target Planned Parenthood, which, thus far, has conducted a
completely partisan, political witch hunt and come up empty.
This legislation continues to fund the Select Committee on the Events
Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi, which has already
spent $7 million on just four hearings over the
[[Page H3590]]
past 2 years in order to smear Secretary Clinton. And what has it
produced? Nothing.
I will note that the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the
2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi has overlapped a number of previous
investigations that also found nothing. You want to cut wasteful
spending, Mr. Speaker? Look no further. Defund the Benghazi hearings.
I am happy to say that the bill provides $563 million for Members'
representational allowances for the coming fiscal year. This is 1.5
percent increase over the current level. But when we consider the fact
that the MRAs have been cut by nearly 17 percent since 2011--that adds
up to $312,000--a mere 1.5 percent increase is clearly inadequate. I
can make the argument that, because of that, we are unable to pay young
people that come here and keep them with their institutional memory,
and in addition we are unable to provide efficient services for our
constituents; yet we cut that $312,000 out of the budget, and now we
are going to add back a little bit and claim that we are being
efficient.
I won't even go into the salary and the cost-of-living adjustment but
to say that people find it surprising that we are entering this
legislation in 2017, year 9, without a cost-of-living increase for
Members of Congress. I wonder if that is causing some of them to live
in their offices. I wonder if it is causing them to breach tax
considerations when they do that and, perhaps, even ethical
considerations. But I won't go into that.
Furthermore, an amendment has been offered that will require a 1
percent cut across the board to the bill's spending levels. Such a cut
would essentially wipe out this already diminutive increase. Members
should vote this amendment down.
With salaries frozen where they are, I just got through saying we
can't retain the best talent. We continue to lose staff. I have three
staffers that were perfect for their jobs that had to leave because
they couldn't afford to live on the salary that we were paying them.
Side note here, Mr. Speaker: the median rent for a one-bedroom
apartment in Washington, D.C., was $2,160 per month last December; and
I will remind the Members of this body that many staffers start here at
$30,000 or less, annually. Do the math. We need to take better care of
our people.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield back, I feel compelled to mention Speaker
Ryan's new rules governing the appropriations process on the House
floor. Three weeks ago, something particularly shameful took place in
this room as we debated the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
An amendment by our colleague and friend, Sean Patrick Maloney,
reached the vote threshold needed to pass. Republican leadership,
apparently caught off guard, held open the vote for nearly 8 minutes in
order to make Republican Members change their vote. They allowed this
to happen in the back of the room, and the amendment failed.
And what contentious subject was the amendment focused on? I will
tell you. Prohibiting Federal contractors from discriminating against
LGBTQ employees. This episode demonstrated just how little courage some
Members of the Republican Party have.
A week later, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney offered his
amendment again, this time to the Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, and it caused such a hubbub that
the legislation collapsed on the floor. I will say that again. A
provision ensuring that LGBTQ contractors can't be fired solely because
they are LGBTQ proved so contentious to Republicans that they defeated
their own appropriations bill--I might add, a good bill--to prevent it
from taking effect.
As a result, beginning this month, House Republican leadership is
closing down the process and requiring all Members to submit amendments
for appropriations measures to the Rules Committee in advance and has
announced regular order is being suspended in order to make sure
Republicans aren't caught off guard by ``embarrassing'' amendments, for
instance, ensuring basic civil rights to American citizens.
Remember Speaker Ryan's pledge to return to regular order? Where is
that commitment now? Perhaps my friends should consider that the reason
these amendments are embarrassing to them is because their position is,
in and of itself, embarrassing.
I will note that Representative Sean Patrick Maloney offered his
amendment again for the current legislation, but this time Republicans
won't even allow it on the floor for a vote.
So, Mr. Maloney, offer it again and again so we can continue to point
out how ridiculous this is.
This entire process is quickly turning into a joke. Enough already.
Why don't we fold the tent, wait until after the conventions and the
November election, and start all over again, because we are doing
nothing here.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is not widely known, but I have believed, in the 5
years that I have been in this institution, that if you were to lock
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and myself in a room
together, we could solve most of the issues that ail this Nation, that
there really is more common ground in this institution than folks are
willing to let on. But I find myself in the very uncomfortable position
today of disagreeing with almost every conclusion that he reached,
while I agree with so many of the fundamental issues that he believes
brought us to this point; for example, regular order is bringing these
appropriations bills to the floor.
The 1974 Budget Act lays out this process clearly. It lays out the
process for passing a budget, and it lays out the process, if the
disagreements over that budget become too great, how we can proceed
with the appropriations bills. It is exactly what is happening here
today and exactly the way we envisioned it in 1974 when they passed the
first Congressional Budget Act. It continues to roll on that way today.
This is a success; it is not a failure
My friend is absolutely right; it has been 9 years since Congress
last received a pay raise. I will say to my friend that I go down to
townhall meetings and I say: One day, I am going to come down here and
tell you that I have so satisfied you and your needs that I think I
deserve a pay raise, too.
I listened to my friend, and my friend talks about how the process is
broken and we can't pass budgets. My friend talks about particularly
shameful episodes that go on here on the floor of the House. My friend
talks about failure to do the right thing and shenanigans that go on
from leadership.
I will tell you, I failed to find anything in those few minutes that
I thought my constituents would find worthy of a pay raise, and I
regret that, Mr. Speaker. Because these men and women that I have the
great pleasure of surrounding myself with here, these Representatives
that come from 343 other very different districts across the country,
they work hard, and they are honorable men and women fighting the
hardest for their constituents who often disagree with me and mine.
We did have a very important vote 2 weeks ago, Mr. Speaker. You
remember it well. I heard my colleagues trumpeting victories for
equality, trumpeting historic votes in favor of equal opportunity when
they passed an amendment, and not 20 minutes later, they voted against
sending that bill to the Senate so that that amendment could become
law.
Hear me again. We have big debates in this Chamber about serious
issues that matter; and at some point, it has to be incumbent upon each
and every one of us, if we get what we want in the amendment process,
we need to support the final bill and get it moving to the President. I
don't need to be right about policy; I need to make a difference on
policy.
Like it or not, there are only two ways to change the law of this
land from this Chamber. One is sending a bill to the President's desk
and winning his signature; and the second is sending a bill to the
President's desk, receiving his veto, and overriding it right back here
in this Chamber. Neither of those processes for change, Mr. Speaker,
even begin if we don't send the legislation from this floor.
I say to the gentleman from Florida, I am not scared of tough votes.
To our colleagues who want to be protected from tough votes, I say you
need to get another job than running for Congress. I am sure there are
other folks who
[[Page H3591]]
will have you. If you don't want to take votes, don't become a United
States Congressman. The toughest votes are the best votes we take in
this institution. They tell us who we are as a people.
But the issues on which we are voting are too important to reduce to
a bumper sticker tagline that goes on a campaign commercial that is
going to be useful for 6 months or less. Let's have the big debates;
let's do the big things; and then let's send those bills to the
President's desk so that it becomes the law of the land.
We can talk and we can talk and we can talk, and so much of that talk
centers around bringing change to America. Whether it is restoring a
value of old or bringing a new value, it relates to bringing change to
America. But that change cannot start until we change a little bit
about ourselves.
Vote for the amendments; vote for your conscience; send those bills
to the White House so we can get this process going.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to address very briefly my friend--and he is my friend--
that I agree with much of what he said. He said fundamentally much of
what I said he did not agree with, but he pointed to the fact that the
Maloney amendment passed and then we turned around and voted against
the bill.
There were other measures in that bill that some of us didn't care
for that caused us to vote against it as well, and among them was one
that was particularly offensive to me since I represent one of our
national parks, and that was carrying guns in national parks.
{time} 1415
I could go on. There were at least seven other riders that were put
on by the majority that caused me angst. I am not sure about everybody
else.
Additionally, I agree with my good friend that he and I could solve
many of these problems, but one thing that I know that he favors, and I
know that he agrees with me, and that is that as often as possible that
we have open rules in this body; where we are headed is, in many
respects, not in that direction.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), my good friend.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this bill picks a fight with the
librarians. In the bill, we seek to compel the Library of Congress to
use an outdated and dehumanizing term to reference people who aren't
citizens of the country.
Although the term ``alien'' is used in our statutes, it is outdated
and deeply insulting to people born abroad who have worked hard to
contribute to our economy and communities. In fact, this fall, the
Republican Party in California itself decided not to use the term
``illegal alien'' in its platform. In this bill, the Republicans in the
House look like they are doubling down on vilifying immigrant
communities.
Now, as part of a longstanding, often-used process for reviewing and
updating subject headings, the Library of Congress apolitically decided
to use the term ``noncitizens'' and ``unauthorized immigration''
instead of the pejorative term ``illegal aliens.'' The Library makes
these types of changes all the time. It is one of 90 such modifications
proposed en masse by the Library this last March.
When a subject heading is changed, references to previous headings
are retained so researchers can use them, but mandating the term
``illegal alien,'' which is what Republicans are doing in this
appropriations bill, is entirely political.
The rider countermands the Library's professional judgment. Now, it
is noteworthy that the Library didn't choose the term ``undocumented
immigrant'' favored by many because they didn't want to be political.
They just wanted to be fair.
Applying these standards in the past, the Library of Congress changed
the subject classification ``Negroes'' to ``African Americans,'' the
way we discuss African Americans today. The catalog used to say
``cripples.'' That makes me cringe. That was changed over time, first
to ``handicapped'' and later to ``people with disabilities.'' But in
this political season, it seems there is no limit to the racial
invective that is being hurled around, and this bill plays into that.
Now, to my knowledge, Congress has never before told the Library of
Congress what the heading in their card catalog has to be, and that we
would do it in this case to promote a term that is so offensive to
people is a darn shame.
Now, in the past, we have used the appropriations process to shut
down the government. Republicans have done that repeatedly. I would
hope that the Republicans in the House would not want to go down that
path with this. It is true, this term is used in the statute. Our
colleague, Representative Castro, has a bill to correct it. I would
urge that bill be taken up and this unwarranted measure be rejected.
I include in the Record a letter from the American Library
Association.
American Library Association and Association for Library
Collections & Technical Services,
April 28, 2016.
Re: Request to Remove ``Library of Congress Classification''
Amendment from Legislative Branch Appropriations
Legislation.
Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey and Members of
the Committee: We write today on behalf of the more than
58,000 members of the American Library Association and of the
Association for Library Collections & Technical Services
(ALCTS): the division of ALA members expert in cataloging and
classification. We do so to respectfully urge the House
Appropriations Committee to strike language in legislation
just adopted by its Legislative Branch Subcommittee that
would bar the Library of Congress (Library) from implementing
an appropriate and thoroughly researched change in its
subject heading classifications announced in late March of
this year.
Specifically, the Library proposes to replace the terms
``Aliens'' with ``Noncitizens,'' and ``Illegal aliens'' with
two headings: ``Noncitizens'' and/or ``Unauthorized
immigration.'' While some see politics in this decision, Mr.
Chairman, as library professionals viewing the work of our
colleagues we see only attention to historical detail,
intellectual honesty, procedural transparency, and
faithfulness to long-standing precepts and practices of
librarianship. These have been the hallmarks of cataloging
for all of ALCTS' nearly 60 years and of almost 130 years of
library science. Stripped of polemic and sensationalism,
these are the facts underpinning the Library of Congress'
frankly routine and professional determination:
The Library of Congress has a long-established, often used
process for reviewing and updating outdated subject headings
and establishing new ones as needed that preserves all prior
versions of updated headings. Such updates may be proposed
from outside or within the Library of Congress, but the
Library makes the final decision on all changes to subject
headings. The Library reviews each change proposal
individually and typically adopts over a thousand each year.
Indeed, the heading change now before the Committee was one
of 90 such modifications proposed en masse by the Library in
March. When a subject heading is changed, references to
previous headings are effectively retained indefinitely so
that researchers who perform a search for a former heading
are certain to be directed to all relevant materials. No
document in the Library of Congress' (or any library's)
collection itself is ever substantively edited, modified,
annotated or ``corrected'' in any way as the result of a
subject heading update like the one interdicted by the
Subcommittee's recent action. Only its catalog ``label''is
altered.
The Library's process in this case was rigorous,
transparent, and consistent with the highest standards of
professional cataloging practice. The Library was first asked
18 months ago, quite publicly, to review its use of the
cataloging term ``illegal aliens'' by one of the nation's
preeminent colleges. That request, with modifications,
subsequently was echoed by the American Library Association
upon debate and approval of a formal Resolution by its more
than 180-member Council in January of 2016. A
``stakeholders'' meeting with all appropriate expert sections
from within the Library then was convened just over two
months ago at which both outside requests, and the broader
issues they raised, were reviewed in detail. It is a measure
of the Library's professionalism and independence that, in
fact, neither external proposal as submitted actually was
accepted. Rather, upon review of the totality of the facts
and consistent with venerable cataloging practice, the
Library apolitically crafted the proposed policy described
above and now before the Committee.
Decisions to update a subject heading are based on many
considerations, including ``literary warrant'': the frequency
with which a term is or is not used in print and other
dynamic resources that, by their nature, change with and
reflect current social structures and norms. For subject
headings that refer to groups of people, special attention is
paid to: popular usage; terms used by members of the group to
self-identify; and avoiding terms that are widely considered
[[Page H3592]]
pejorative toward the group being described. Applying these
same standards in the past, for example, the Library of
Congress uneventfully changed the subject classification
``Negroes'' to ``Afro-Americans'' and again to ``African
Americans'' over a period of years. The catalog term
``Cripples'' similarly morphed over time, first to
``Handicapped'' and later to ``People with disabilities.''
Congress made no move to countermand those expert cataloging
determinations.
The Library reasonably and properly concluded in this
instance that, when used in reference to people, the long-
used terms ``illegal'' and ``alien'' have in recent decades
acquired derogatory connotations, become pejorative, and been
associated with nativist and racist sentiments. As the
Library has noted: the heading ``Aliens'' has been in use by
the Library since 1910; ``Aliens, illegal'' came into
official use more than 35 years ago; and ``Illegal aliens''
has been in service for almost a quarter-century. Over that
long span of time, and particularly in recent years,
referring to undocumented persons (as opposed to forms of
conduct) as ``illegal'' increasingly has been widely
acknowledged as dehumanizing, offensive, inflammatory, and
even a racial slur.
This shift has been plain and pronounced, as the Library
observed, in precisely the kind of dynamic materials that
cataloging standards require any Library to assess in
evaluating the suitability of a subject heading in use and
its prospective modification. Indeed, in recent years many
national news organizations (including the Associated Press,
USA Today, ABC, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times)
categorically have stopped using the word ``illegal'' to
describe human beings as a matter of editorial policy.
Moreover, the Pew Research Center has documented that their
actions were not merely anecdotal or aberrant in any way. To
the contrary, Pew compared use of the term ``illegal aliens''
in U.S. newspapers during the same two-week period in 1996,
2002, 2007 and 2013 (all times when immigration matters were
much in the news). It found that use of that phrase declined
precipitously over the most recent 6-year period surveyed,
appearing in 21% of news reports in 2007 but just 5% in 2013:
a 76% reduction in use and all-time low.
We understand, Mr. Chairman, why some have chosen to
politicize the Library's proposed subject heading changes
discussed above. In light of the foregoing, however, it is
the view of our Associations that, at minimum, the Library of
Congress' recent proposed reclassifications discussed above
are fully consistent with accepted professional cataloging
standards and practices. Indeed, we believe that a compelling
case can be made that the proposed changes are required by
them. We hope that the foregoing description of the standards
and practices of our profession, rigorously adhered to and
unimpeachably applied by the Library of Congress in this
case, will assist the Committee to accept the Library's
independent professional cataloging determinations.
Specifically, we urge you and all Members of the Committee
to strike all language from any piece of appropriations
legislation that would countermand or modify the Library's
recent determinations pertaining to the terms ``Aliens'' and/
or ``Illegal aliens,'' and to oppose any other legislation
that would have similar effect.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the Committee
with a factual context in which to consider its upcoming
actions. Please contact us should you or your staff have any
questions, or require any additional information.
Respectfully submitted,
Sari Feldman,
President, American Library Association.
Norm Medeiros,
President, Association for Library Collections & Technical
Services.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My friend from Florida made reference to regular order earlier and,
again, he and I see very much eye-to-eye on that issue. The gentlewoman
who just spoke is one of my great friends on the Committee on the
Judiciary.
I would like to read the offending language that folks are referring
to. It says this in its entirety:
To the extent practicable, the committee instructs the
Library to maintain certain subject headings that reflect
terminology used in title VIII United States Code. To the
extent practicable, the Congress directs the Library of
Congress to use the laws passed by Congress.
That is the offending language.
My friend serves on the Committee on the Judiciary. If the Committee
on the Judiciary did as she is suggesting and changed the law tomorrow,
this language would reflect those changes passed by the Committee on
the Judiciary tomorrow. This isn't the Committee on Appropriations'
jurisdiction. We can, as an open appropriations process allows, make
every political point that we want to make on every topic under the
Sun, but longstanding policy is not changed in an annual appropriations
bill. It is changed by authorizers like my friends on the Committee on
the Judiciary, and I urge them to get to work on it.
There is no question, all of the examples the gentlewoman cited, I am
with her 100 percent. We have made those changes, and we are the better
for it, but let's not suggest--again, to my friend from Florida's
point, why don't folks think Congress is deserving of a pay raise? I
listened to my friend describe the motivations that folks had for
including this language. They were not described as motivations in
friendly or admiring terms. The language that says from Congress to the
Library of Congress, use the laws passed by Congress.
Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. I would just like to note and put into the Record the
fact sheet from the American Library Association indicating that it is
the Library of Congress' belief that it will need to change its policy
already underway on this, so if the gentleman is saying that the
language in the bill doesn't require a change on the Library's part, I
think that would be news to the Library.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I am not suggesting anything of the
kind. I am suggesting that the language that folks are describing as
offensive says from the Congress to the Library of Congress, use the
laws passed by Congress.
If we don't like the laws of the land, we have a process to change
them, and for better or for worse, that process begins in the committee
on which the gentlewoman serves.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time so that I can continue
my discussion with my friend from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lofgren) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the missive from
the American Library Association entitled ``Support Library of Congress
Autonomy in Subject Heading Determinations.''
Support Library of Congress Autonomy in Subject Heading Determinations
[From the American Library Association and Association for Library
Collections & Technical Services]
In late March of this year, after an extensive process
consistent with long-standing library principles and
practice, the Library of Congress proposed to replace the
subject heading classification ``Aliens'' with
``Noncitizens,'' and ``Illegal aliens'' with two headings:
``Noncitizens'' and/or ``Unauthorized immigration.'' Similar,
but not identical, changes previously had been requested by
Dartmouth College and endorsed by the American Library
Association.
In mid-April, the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the
House Appropriations Committee adopted language that would,
in effect, countermand the Library's professional judgments
and reverse the proposed reclassifications noted above. (The
Report adopted by the Subcommittee states: ``To the extent
practicable, the Committee instructs the Library to maintain
certain subject headings that reflect terminology used in
title 8, United States Code.'') The full House Appropriations
Committee will meet in mid-May and has the power to undo the
Subcommittee's action.
On April 28, the Presidents of ALA and ALCTS (ALA's
division of members expert in cataloging and classification)
wrote the attached letter to the Committee's leaders and
members on April 28 asking that they do so. Its principal
points and specific requests follow on the reverse.
KEY POINTS: ``LIBRARY LETTER'' TO HOUSE APPROPRIATORS BACKING PROPOSED
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS RECLASSIFICATIONS
The Library of Congress has a long-established, often used
process for reviewing and updating outdated subject headings
and establishing new ones as needed that preserves all prior
versions of updated headings.
The Library's process in this case was rigorous,
transparent, and consistent with the highest standards of
professional cataloging practice.
Decisions to update a subject heading are based on many
considerations, including ``literary warrant:'' the frequency
with which a term is or is not used in print and other
dynamic resources that, by their nature, change with and
reflect current social structures and norms. For headings
that refer to groups of people, special attention is paid to:
popular usage; terms used by members of the group to self-
identify; and avoiding terms widely considered to be
pejorative toward the group being described.
[[Page H3593]]
The Library reasonably and properly concluded in this
instance that, when used in reference to people, the long-
used terms ``illegal'' and ``alien'' have in recent decades
acquired derogatory connotations, become pejorative, and been
associated with nativist and racist sentiments. Particularly
in recent years, referring to undocumented persons (as
opposed to forms of conduct) as ``illegal'' increasingly has
been widely acknowledged as dehumanizing, offensive,
inflammatory, and even a racial slur. This shift has been
plain and pronounced:
in recent years many national news organizations (including
the Associated Press, USA Today, ABC, Chicago Tribune, and
Los Angeles Times) categorically have stopped using the word
``illegal'' to describe human beings as a matter of editorial
policy; and
the Pew Research Center compared use of the term ``illegal
aliens'' in U.S. newspapers during the same two-week period
in 1996, 2002, 2007 and 2013 (all times when immigration
matters were much in the news). It found that use of that
phrase declined precipitously over the most recent 6-year
period surveyed, appearing in 21% of news reports in 2007 but
just 5% in 2013: a 76% reduction in use and all-time low.
The Library of Congress' recent proposed reclassifications
discussed above are fully consistent with accepted
professional cataloging standards and practices. Indeed, a
compelling case can be made that the proposed changes are
required by them.
ALA and ALCTS, its division of experts in cataloging, urge
the Committee to accept the Library's apolitical subject
heading judgment and, thus, to strike language from any piece
of appropriations legislation that would modify or
countermand the Library's recent determinations pertaining to
the terms ``Aliens'' and/or ``Illegal aliens,'' and to oppose
any other legislation that would have similar effect.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California), my friend and the
ranking member of the Committee on Ethics in this body.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition
to the consideration of H.R. 5325, a deceitful effort by House
Republicans to yet again dehumanize an entire group of people. It pains
me to even say the phrase ``illegal alien'' out loud because it is
pejorative, it is offensive, and has no place in our modern discourse.
The Library of Congress is correct to leave this phrase in the pages of
history and never to have it uttered again.
The importance of the Library of Congress' decision to discontinue
and remove the outdated phrase cannot be emphasized enough. Libraries
nationwide and around the world look to the Library of Congress'
subject headings and other standards to publish information. As
lawmakers representing a country of immigrants, Congress should not
assist in the dissemination of information that perpetuates racism and
promotes hate.
Of course, I am not at all surprised that congressional Republicans
would resort to inserting themselves into bibliographic decisions that
are normally reserved for librarians, not appropriators or politicians.
Republicans hypocritically claim to want to keep government out of
people's lives, but want government to intrude and dictate standards
only when it benefits their bigoted views.
Sadly, today's effort and other past maneuvers to block President
Obama's executive actions on immigration falls in line with the
concerted effort to move our country backward. We are better than that.
Instead of promoting antiquated and deplorable language, we should be
tackling any number of important issues--affordable education, tax
reform, and promoting job growth--not telling librarians and educators
how to do their jobs.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Going back to my friend from Florida's case that we have hardworking
men and women here who haven't had a pay raise in 9 years, if we are a
part of a body that perpetuates racism and hate, I don't want a single
one of us to get a penny. I don't want a single one of us to get a
penny. My experience is that is not at all who we are. That is not who
we are at all.
My quick text search of the U.S. Code--and I am a lawyer, but I
haven't read the Code cover to cover--tells me that ``illegal alien''
is referenced 32 times, even in a single title. Let's go change it. If
you want to get rid of it, let's go in and get rid of it. Don't act
like this is beyond our control and if only we can fix the Library of
Congress, suddenly we can solve all that ails us.
This is the United States Code. If you don't like the Code, change
the Code. Tell me that we are ineffective and we can't get that done?
We are talking about a title change here, one that we have already
done, already this Congress. We eliminated the last reference to
``Oriental'' in the United States Code. We do these things together,
but we don't do them by accusing one another of promoting racism and
hate. We do those things by talking to one another.
Mr. HASTINGS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS. The Library of Congress has made 90 subject head
changes. Why this one? Why does it have to stick and can't be changed?
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I confess that I had no idea the
Library of Congress was even in the subject change heading business. It
wasn't until I read a press release from somebody talking about this
issue that I even knew this issue existed. But now that I know it
exists, I know that it doesn't exist in subject titles at the Library
of Congress. It exists in the United States Code that is the law of the
land for the greatest free nation this world has ever known.
You want to talk about shame on us? Shame on us for letting the
librarians decide when the debate begins and when the debate ends. It
is the United States Code and the responsibility falls to one body and
one body only, and that body is here.
I want to go back home, Mr. Speaker. I want to tell my constituents
they are getting every dollar's worth out of this institution and,
candidly, I believe they are getting more value today than they were
yesterday and they got more value yesterday than they did a week ago or
a month ago or a year ago. I think we are getting better.
I will give you a small example. We talk about legislative branch
funding as if it is some sort of self-serving institution. That is just
nonsense. We came here with one job and one job only, and that is to
serve our constituents back home. This cycle we have passed the FAST
Act, the first long-term transportation funding bill in 20 years. We
did it together. We couldn't do it alone. We did it together.
Mr. Speaker, after 17 years of kicking the can down the road on the
sustainable growth rate, that Medicare tag line that threatened care
for every single senior citizen on Medicare, 17 years of kicking it
down the road, we came together and abolished it forever. Forever. We
did it together because that is the only way we could get it done. The
Visa Waiver Program improvement.
Mr. Speaker, S. 139, the bill that made it easier for people with
rare diseases to get involved in clinical trials. Can you imagine? Can
you imagine a government that in the name of helping people said: Oh,
no, you can't try that new cure. It might hurt you. When your response
is, Mr. Government, I am dying, it is my only chance of survival. We
fixed that. One of many things about what is best about this
institution, Mr. Speaker, Time and time again, we come together to
solve real problems that real people have asked of us. That is what
this funding bill is about.
I hope we are going to move past this bill today. I hope we are going
to get back to regular order. It pains me that in an election year, it
threatens the free and open debate that this institution prides itself
on. But I think that is just fear. I think we are better than that. I
think we are going to get past it. But that is not the debate today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell both
sides how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 14 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am
going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that
would disband the select investigative panel of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce. Mr. Speaker, this panel is just another waste of taxpayer
money. Three House committees, 12 States, and one grand jury have
already investigated the charges against Planned Parenthood, and none
found evidence of wrongdoing.
[[Page H3594]]
{time} 1430
Mr. Speaker, this panel is conducting a purely partisan political
witch hunt, and it should be disbanded.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Curbelo of Florida). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the distinguished
ranking member of the select investigative panel, to discuss the
proposal.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous
question so that Mr. Hastings can offer H.R. 769, a resolution to shut
down the select panel that we call the select panel to attack women's
health.
House Republicans created this panel based on a lie and fraudulent
videotapes that have been discredited by three House committees, 12
States, and a Texas grand jury that actually indicted the video maker.
They have used this fraud as a pretext to conduct a lethally dangerous
witch hunt aimed at women's health clinics and scientists conducting
promising research on diseases like Alzheimer's, MS, and the Zika
virus.
Panel Republicans are bullying witnesses and abusing congressional
authority in a manner not seen since the days of Senator Joe McCarthy.
But this time, people's lives, not just their livelihoods, are at
stake.
Republicans have issued dozens of unilateral subpoenas without first
seeking voluntary cooperation. They are demanding the names of
researchers, students, clinical personnel, doctors, and medical
students, amassing a database that could be released publicly at any
time.
Republicans refuse to put rules in place to protect these names and
have reneged on public promises to do so. Instead, they have publicly
released names and confidential documents.
They issued a press release naming a doctor who has already faced
decades of harassment and violence; disclosed the time, place, and
location of his appearance before the panel; and fueled the flames by
comparing him to a convicted murderer.
They have repeatedly used inflammatory rhetoric, comparing
researchers to Nazi war criminals and echoing words of antiabortion
activists that were also used by the gunman who shot 12 people, killing
3, at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs.
Republicans have demanded and obtained information that they have no
right or need to know, including records of victims of rape and
personal financial information.
The Republicans are abusing power and putting people's lives in
danger in pursuit of their agenda to limit legal abortion and a woman's
right to choose and to shut down fetal tissue research.
Fetal tissue research has historically had broad bipartisan support.
It is the basis for key vaccines that have saved millions of lives,
including the polio vaccine.
The so-called investigative panel has already had a chilling effect
on research, drying up the supply of needed tissue for research on
multiple sclerosis and threatening other diseases, including
Alzheimer's and diabetes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. All I really need is the time to say this:
We should now be ending this dangerous and unjustifiable witch hunt.
It is time to say ``no'' to this panel, and it is time to say ``no'' to
the previous question so that we can finally have a really strong
debate on this House floor and finally defund this panel.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Florida that
I do not have any speakers remaining and am prepared to close when he
is.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my good friend.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished
gentleman from Florida for his management of what is a difficult and
trying legislative process and my distinguished friend from Georgia, as
well, for his service. Both of them are on the Rules Committee.
It pains me to come to the floor on an appropriations bill when I
know that there is so much opportunity for us to be able to work
together. I know my good friend from Georgia will understand the pain
of which I speak and will also attest to the fact that, in many
instances in the appropriations process, we have an open rule and we
allow our Members to express themselves on behalf of the people of
their congressional districts but, more importantly, the higher goal,
and that is, the people of the United States of America.
Let me first express my pain that this bill is the first bill that
has come to the floor, when I know that there was vigorous debate and
possibilities for the energy and water bill--certainly, in my
congressional district, which has seen itself under inches and inches
of rain, seeing people die, and losing individuals through these
enormous rains and flooding--because we need the kind of infrastructure
that comes under energy and water. That bill is not being able to pass.
Seeing the funding for access to health care, community centers,
community health clinics not yet come to the floor; seeing the funding
for infrastructure and transit that is so needed in our urban centers,
like Houston, Texas, not coming to the floor. And then, of course, the
Department of Justice, which is in the middle of dealing with
commutation of sentencings, dealing with youth justice programs,
dealing with a number of issues that are paining Americans; and they
need our relief.
Yet the bill that comes to the floor, I must again painfully say, is
an appropriations bill that I will not be able to support. It is a bill
that really keeps the wheels going in this place. It is not a more
important bill, but it keeps the wheels going so that we can do the
people's work.
Here is what is happening that I think is a dastardly reflection on
what we have come to. Let me be very clear. As a senior member of the
Judiciary Committee dealing with the mechanics of lawmaking, dealing
with laws that ultimately provide people civil or criminal justice
relief or constitutional relief, I want to tell my colleagues who wrote
this language that the issue dealing with the Library of Congress is an
administrative one.
The idea that noncitizens and unauthorized immigration have any
impact on creating a comprehensive immigration system, which I have
introduced legislation along with my colleagues, joining with them over
the years, has no import and impact of law. It is truly an
administrative task that the Library of Congress is attempting to
comport with national experts of librarians.
Everybody loves a librarian. They give our children knowledge. They
give our students knowledge. They give all of us knowledge.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an addition 1
minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. They give us their best expertise.
Why we would intrude in an administrative process when it goes into
nothing that impacts the scheme of the administrative or the legal
structure here in the United States: it is to denigrate; it is to
insult.
We understand that the word ``illegal'' does connote that you have
violated a criminal act in certain instances. And there are those who
are undocumented, noncitizens, et cetera, unauthorized, that have not
violated any criminal laws.
Let me also say to you that defunding of the foolish Planned
Parenthood investigation is warranted. Why? In my own home State of
Texas, in Houston, the indictment did not go to Planned Parenthood,
which was the attempt; but it went to the perpetrators of fraud on
Planned Parenthood. There is nothing to investigate.
If you want to investigate, then investigate the lack of access of
millions of women in the State of Texas who were using those clinics
that Planned Parenthood had.
[[Page H3595]]
So my point is this is a bill we must vote against. Vote against the
underlying rule and the bill, because it is nothing but fraud and
foolishness, and that is not what we should do in this House.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rarely speak from the well of the House. I come down
here today because, like my good friend from Georgia and many of us in
this institution, those of us that have studied the institution
genuinely love it and recognize that it is, fundamentally, what makes
our Nation great.
When we speak of Congress, we are talking about the House of
Representatives and the United States Senate. For a substantial period
of time, both in the control of Democrats and Republicans, we have
carried ourselves in a way that has caused us to appear dysfunctional.
And, in many instances--validly--those that look at us feel that we are
unable to get things done.
My younger friend from Georgia pointed out a significant number of
things that we did do, and he is correct about that. But he also knows
there are a significant number of things that we have not been able to
do, largely for the reason that we are not acting in a bipartisan
manner--in an openly transparent manner, in many instances--in order to
provide for all of the Members of this body to have input.
I came to the well because, as I near my 80th birthday, I am in a
different category than many of the younger Members in this
institution. Many of the younger Members of this institution have young
families.
We, the 434 of us that are seated--and we will swear in the 435th a
little later today--and the delegates from the territories and the
District of Columbia, are in a variety of categories, as Americans.
Some substantial number of Members in this body are multimillionaires;
a significant number of Members of this body easily qualify to be in
the middle class or the upper class; and there are some Members here
who are in the lower class in our society.
Fortunately for us, in the 22 years that I have been here, I have
seen this body grow in its diversity. More women on both sides, African
Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans are part
of this body from different walks of life. Some of us own our own homes
here in the metropolitan Virginia-Maryland area. Some rent apartments.
Some are in basements. Some are in one room. Some are gathered together
because of the expenses here.
Now, my friend is right. I would like to go home and be able to show
to my constituents and to his that we did everything that we could here
to make for more efficiency. But I can cite the glut all over our
agencies and, at the very same time, I make no apologies to anybody for
how hard I work or how hard he works and the fact that we are entering
our 9th year without a pay raise.
Now, I think it is wrong for Members of the House of Representatives
to live in their offices. I think that there is an ethics provision
that needs to be addressed, and I think there is a tax consideration
that needs to be addressed.
{time} 1445
And the public does not understand that nearly 100 Members, including
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, live in their offices.
Something is drastically wrong with that. Most of them are there for
the reason that they can't afford to live in this town; and somehow or
another, we are deserving, as are our staffs, deserving of being paid
appropriately.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to remind my friends of the
importance of the legislation we are debating today. This legislation
allows us to run our operations here in Congress. Unfortunately, with
this legislation, my friends in the majority are continuing their trend
of putting politics above policy.
For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and
oppose the underlying measure.
And I want to make it very, very clear that the remarks that I made
are my remarks. They are not the remarks of the Democrats in this
institution. But I know this: I have had a lot of Members on both sides
of the aisle say to me that they know that I am correct.
Courage, friends, courage, that is what it takes.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I love watching my friend from Florida speak. The only thing I love
more than watching him speak is talking to him one-on-one when the
cameras are turned off.
It is not as easy as it ought to be in 2016 to come to the floor of
the House and speak one's mind. Folks are worried about what the
newspapers are going to say. Folks are worried about what the news is
going to broadcast. Folks are worried about what the Twitterverse is
going to do.
A lot of folks will tell you one thing when the cameras are on and
another thing when the cameras are turned off, Mr. Speaker, but Alcee
Hastings is not one of those folks. It is the same message no matter
who he is talking to and no matter where he is saying it because he
comes from a place of conviction, and I love serving with people like
that.
Truthfully, Mr. Speaker, if folks knew that it wasn't just their
Member of Congress that was like that, but it was the one next door,
and the one down the road, and the one across the river, and the one
upstate, I think we would have a very different discussion about
whether Congress is working or whether Congress is failing.
But, Mr. Speaker, when I try to sort those issues out, I don't really
have to go back home to figure out why folks are disappointed. I don't
even have to go back to the public record. I don't have to go any
further than this one debate on this one legislative day.
Just in our hour together, Mr. Speaker, I have heard Members suggest
that this House is using tactics not seen since Joe McCarthy. I
wouldn't pay for that. I have heard Members suggest that this House is
perpetuating racism and hate. I wouldn't pay for that. I have heard
that there are dastardly things happening in the work of this
institution. I am not going to pay for that. I have heard that we have
been involved in activities particularly shameful.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have all got a great relationship with the
men and women who send us here to serve them. We have a special
relationship, and a relationship that, I think, the men and women in
this Chamber work exceptionally hard to make good on; but when we use
the credibility that we develop in that relationship to tell folks that
we are broken, to tell folks that we are worthless, to tell folks that
the greatest experiment in self-governance that the world has ever
known is failing, they believe us. They believe us.
Mr. Speaker, the discussions that we have, the differences that are
brought to life on this floor, those are not failures. Those are
successes. The back and the forth, the fights that we have, the
headlines that get made when folks just can't agree, those are not
failures: those are successes.
When the Framers put together this Constitution, Mr. Speaker, they
made it hard--they made it hard to change the law of the land. It was
supposed to be the rare thing that happened when we all came together
and found agreement, and when we did, it was going to be in the best
interest of a young Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues challenge us to defeat this
bill today, as if funding the United States Congress is a self-serving
action. I don't know who the self-serving Members of this institution
are, Mr. Speaker, because I have not met them.
My friend from Texas came to the floor, and she said: If we don't get
our work done, NIH will not be funded. And she is right. She said: If
we do not get our work done, justice reform will not happen. And she is
right. She said: If we do not get our work done, families that are
struggling to respond to floods in her home part of the country will
not get the dollars. And she is right. She is right.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about changing the appropriations process
to allow a little less openness, and I regret that. We are talking
about it because, in the name of doing that energy
[[Page H3596]]
and water bill that she spoke of, in the name of passing those bills
that are essential to the functioning of the country, in the name of
doing that responsibility that the Constitution places squarely on our
shoulders, we have folks who pass amendments to bills only to let those
bills fail.
I would tell you, as someone who believes in an open process, who
believes in an open process, that if we can have that festival of
democracy that is an open rule on an appropriations bill, let's have
it. Let's let the votes fall where they may, and then send that bill to
the Senate and on to the White House and make it the law of the land.
But if in the name of making a point, we prevent this institution
from doing its constitutionally mandated business, if in the process of
making a political point, we prevent this institution from providing
the money for that fundamental research, from providing the money for
that flood relief, from providing the money for essential justice
reform, I tell you, we have not honored this Nation with an open
process; we have failed it.
And the question then falls to us: Are we going to have an open
process that allows every Member to speak out on behalf of their
constituency to fight for what may be best for this Nation that we all
love? Or are we going to have election-year politics, decide that being
able to produce that press release is more important than getting our
work done?
I happen to know the answer, Mr. Speaker. I happen to know the answer
because I happen to know each one of these Members on a personal level.
There is not one of them who wouldn't turn in their voting card
tomorrow if they could take a vote on the biggest issue that matters to
them today. There is not one of them that wouldn't turn in their voting
card tomorrow if they could make a difference for this generation and
the next generation today, and I love that about them. I love it about
each and every one of them.
Passing this bill lets those folks come to work and get this job
done. Passing this bill allows us to get to work doing those things
that I believe will honor the men and women who sent us here. Passing
this rule allows us to get to the underlying bill that will keep the
lights on not just for constituent service back in every district in
this land, but the lights on in what I would argue is the greatest
deliberative body, the greatest embodiment of self-governance that this
world has ever known.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 771 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 769)
Terminating a Select Investigative Panel of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution to adoption without intervening motion or
demand for division of the question except one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Rules.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of House Resolution 769.
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. 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. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________