[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.

                          ____________________