[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 138 (Tuesday, September 13, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5357-H5364]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5620, VA ACCOUNTABILITY FIRST AND 
                   APPEALS MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2016

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 859 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 859

       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. 5620) to amend title 38, United States Code, 
     to provide for the removal or demotion of employees of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs based on performance or 
     misconduct, 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 Veterans' Affairs. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous materials on House Resolution 859, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward, 
on behalf of the Rules Committee today, this rule that provides for 
consideration of H.R. 5620, the VA Accountability First and Appeals 
Modernization Act of 2016.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and 
also provides a motion to recommit.
  Additionally, the rule makes in order several amendments, 
representing ideas from both sides of the aisle. Yesterday the Rules 
Committee received testimony from the chairman and ranking member of 
the Veterans' Affairs Committee and heard from numerous Members on 
behalf of amendments offered.
  H.R. 5620 includes provisions of the House-passed versions of H.R. 
1994, the VA Accountability Act; H.R. 280, the legislation related to 
bonuses paid to VA employees; language from H.R. 5083, the VA Appeals 
Modernization Act; and H.R. 4138, legislation related to relocation 
payments for VA employees.
  The VA Accountability First and Appeals Modernization Act continues 
efforts by this Congress to reform the VA and address the bureaucratic 
mess that has plagued its operations for far too long.

                              {time}  1315

  The bill builds on meaningful steps to restore accountability to the 
Department of Veterans Affairs and ensure it is appropriately providing 
veterans with the resources and care they deserve.
  We have heard time and time again that the Department of Veterans 
Affairs has failed to hold individuals accountable for their actions. 
In the circumstances when the VA has tried to take appropriate 
disciplinary action against an employee, the process is rarely 
efficient or meaningful. That is just simply unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.
  In fact, a recent study done by the GAO found that on average it 
takes 6 months to a year--or even longer--to remove a permanent civil 
servant in the Federal Government. This is ridiculous on its own. 
Imagine a private business having underperforming employees but not 
being able to remove them from their positions and, in some 
circumstances, even being forced to give them raises or bonuses.
  Examples range from the typical poor-performing employee to the 
absurd. Projects continue to be mismanaged and cost overruns abound. 
Then there are the cases bordering on the absurd.
  In one case, the VA helped a veteran, who was an inpatient of the 
substance abuse clinic, purchase illegal drugs. This employee continued 
to work at the VA for over a year before removal proceedings even 
started. Mr. Speaker, did you catch that? It was a year before the 
proceedings even started. This is amazing.
  Another VA employee, a nurse in this case, showed up to work 
intoxicated and participated in a veteran's surgery while under the 
influence. Yet another VA employee participated in an armed robbery.
  This behavior would not slide in the private sector, and we certainly 
shouldn't stand for it when it comes to our Nation's heroes who have 
put their lives on the line to serve our country.
  VA officials have even stated in testimony that the process for 
removing employees is too difficult and lengthy. This means that 
problem employees continue to work for the VA and interact with 
veterans. These employees aren't providing services to the agency, and 
they aren't providing services to our Nation's veterans.
  Employees like this need to be removed in a timely way. At the very 
least, employees need to receive discipline appropriate to the 
misconduct in a way that discourages poor performance or behavior in 
the future, but that is just not happening right now.
  Let me be clear--and I want to again emphasize because it may even 
come up here in just a moment--this is not a broadside attack on all VA 
employees. This is not something that says that all VA employees are 
bad. In fact, it is far from it.
  My office, Mr. Speaker--yours as well, and many others--deal with the 
VA in a very constructive way, helping many of our veterans get what 
they need. There are hardworking and wonderful individuals at the VA 
who are doing all they can to help our Nation's veterans. In northeast 
Georgia, my office has a good working relationship with our local VA 
and especially in Augusta and Atlanta in the places we need.
  This is not an issue of all of the employees. In fact, we have 
actually heard from employees of the VA. They say we need these changes 
because they are tired of being dragged down by the anchors of the bad 
employees.
  Those employees who are doing work well, they are just hindered by 
this bureaucracy--and it has got to stop--by a system that fails to 
remove or discipline those poorly performing counterparts. That is not 
fair to these hardworking individuals who are, in fact, doing their 
jobs. Most importantly, it

[[Page H5358]]

is not fair to the veterans. But I am going to take it a step further 
as well--it is not fair to the taxpayers.
  That is why this bill, the VA Accountability First and Appeals 
Modernization Act, will take steps to address this problem. The bill 
will provide improved protections for whistleblowers. It will restrict 
bonuses for supervisors who retaliate against whistleblowers and 
strengthen accountability of VA senior executive service employees.
  It would expand senior executive service removal authority and create 
an expedited removal system that would include an appeals process. It 
would also eliminate bonuses for VA senior executive service employees 
for 5 years and streamline authority for the Secretary of the VA to 
rescind employee bonuses. I wish these steps weren't necessary, but the 
ongoing problems plaguing the VA demand strong action.
  Our veterans deserve better, and we have to take steps to be served 
by this agency that is supposed to be providing them assistance.
  In addition to the problems with the VA employee misconduct, the VA's 
current appeals process is unquestionably broken. As of June 1, 2016, 
there were almost 457,000 appeals pending in the VA, an increase of 
over 80,000 pending appeals from the preceding year. In fact, in the 
Atlanta regional office, there are about 16,500 appeals pending with an 
approximate 3-year wait time; and the backlog is growing. Caseworkers 
in my Gainesville office have been told that cases from 2013 are, in 
some cases, just getting on the desk of VA employees.
  Appeals issues are the most common types of cases that my district 
office sees. We have some great caseworkers in my Georgia office, but 
they are not able to speed up the process. They only help navigate the 
red tape and bureaucracy.
  My office is always willing to help veterans in need, and we stand by 
ready to help when we can. But it shouldn't take a congressional office 
to get answers from the VA. The VA should be answering veterans in a 
timely manner. This process needs to be fixed. As a current, still 
active member of the United States Air Force Reserve, this is just not 
what we need.
  Mr. Speaker, could you think about what we could do with our 
caseworkers if they were not bogged down in this kind of inefficiency 
dealing with the VA that we have addressed in this Congress on other 
occasions with funding and with other issues, and they are still 
dealing with this?
  When a veteran appeals a claim, they shouldn't have to wait for years 
for an answer. But the current system has led to a backlog that leaves 
many veterans in limbo.
  This bill takes steps in the right direction. H.R. 5630 would 
streamline the appeals process and help clear the massive backlog of 
appeals currently stuck and clogging the system.
  Under the bill, veterans will be able to obtain faster decisions and 
will be able to retain the original effective date of their claims 
throughout the appeals process. It will protect veterans' due process 
rights while updating the antiquated appeals process for VA disability 
benefits.
  This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. It is something that we need to 
address. We can make all the excuses in the world we want. We have 
funded this. As my Senator from Georgia has stated, who is the chairman 
of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, money is no longer the 
biggest issue. They have the resources, and they have the will of the 
Congress. The question is: Will we give them the tools and will the 
Secretary, more importantly, actually act upon those? That, I have 
questions about, but we are here today to pass this rule and to get 
this bill to help those who need help the most, and that is our 
veterans.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia. I want to point out that with 
regard to procedures and regular order and how this body works, there 
is a difference between these two bills, the one that I discussed 
previously under the other rule and this one. The deficit bill, the $30 
billion increase in the deficit that the Republicans want to do, that 
came through what we call regular order, meaning it was marked up in 
the Ways and Means Committee. That is normally how things work around 
here. A bill goes through committee, then it comes to the Rules 
Committee, and then it goes to the floor.
  This bill, however, sort of magically appeared in Rules Committee. It 
didn't go through the committee of jurisdiction which, at the very 
least, would include the Veterans' Affairs Committee. It might include 
other committees as well. It simply appeared and was referred to the 
floor. So what that means is Members of Congress and a committee did 
not have a chance to amend it. We don't even know if it would have had 
a vote in committee and whether it cleared committee. Instead, it just 
sort of appeared right now.
  So, look, we all deeply care, of course, about veterans. I agree with 
much of what my colleague from Georgia said about the need for the VA 
to do better.
  In Colorado, I have been very involved with our long-overdue, new 
veterans hospital in Aurora. We have been working many years on getting 
this completed. In fact, delays have cost taxpayers over $300 million. 
It continues to leave many who served in our Armed Forces, including 
many of my constituents, without the convenient, quality care that they 
were promised.
  So I join my colleagues, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Coffman, and many others 
from our entire Colorado delegation, in, of course, wanting to improve 
the quality of services at the VA. We had issues as well with 
fraudulent overbilling and mislabeling of the amount of time that 
patients waited out of our Fort Collins facility.
  There are a number of problems with this bill, but one of them that I 
want to briefly mention is that it can actually lead to less 
accountability in the VA because it could lead to the punishment of 
whistleblowers, of employees who speak up against mismanagement.
  When you are looking at passing a thoughtful human resources policy 
or personnel policy--and I don't dispute that we need to work with the 
VA to come up with a better way of doing it--you want to make sure that 
somebody who is a whistleblower is adequately protected. If somebody 
comes forward and says, you know what, we are doing mislabeling of 
timesheets, or, you know what, I know why this project is $300 million 
over budget, and this might be because of X, Y, or Z, it doesn't always 
rise to the Federal level of whistleblower.
  We just want good employees to not feel that they can be fired for 
coming forward with the truth about misconduct. This bill does not do 
that. In fact, it will make those who have useful information that can 
lead to systemic improvements at the VA more hesitant to come forward 
with that information.
  The bill removes a due process protection for VA employees and 
reduces the amount of time they have to respond to a termination by 
two-thirds, from 30 days to 10 days. We all want to move expeditiously, 
but it seems like 30 days is a reasonable timeframe. There is no 
evidence given as to why that 20-day reduction is needed. I haven't 
heard any.
  It also eliminates a requirement that supervisors provide specific 
examples of poor performance when an employee is terminated--of course, 
there should be reasons given--opening the door for unnecessary firings 
and leaving VA employees with no recourse or rebuttal.
  In any organization, employee morale is critical. And to create an 
environment of paranoia in any enterprise--a company, an agency--is not 
conducive to furthering the mission. Creating this kind of uncertainty 
and chaos from a personnel perspective within the VA would likely only 
make our services to veterans even harder to provide and worse by 
decreasing employee morale, therefore, making it harder to attract the 
type of quality caregivers and administrators that we need to 
facilitate the VA program.
  Look, this bill is an attempt to make long-overdue reforms. I wish 
that it was a thoughtful, bipartisan attempt. I wish it had gone 
through committee. I wish the committee had worked on it, marked it up, 
and reported it out with bipartisan support; but that is not what has 
happened here.
  This bill appeared at the last minute, throws away basic rights of 
employees, reduces morale, endangers whistleblowers, and does very 
little to improve the quality of services of the VA

[[Page H5359]]

or, frankly, the accountability of the employees of the VA, both at the 
management level and at the worker level.
  Like a lot of ideas that we debate here, of course, there is a kernel 
of an idea here. Yes, we want to work together to reform the VA. We 
agree with that. My colleague from Georgia gave a lot of reasons. I 
could give my own. I mentioned the price overrides in our hospital in 
Aurora. I have mentioned the manipulated timesheets in Fort Collins. I 
have mentioned, like my colleague from Georgia, just the individual 
cases where I have had constituents that we have had to help navigate 
an overly complex bureaucracy and they shouldn't have to go to their 
Member of Congress.
  For men and women who have served our country, for men and women who 
were injured in the line of duty, for men and women who are disabled 
from a service-related injury, we owe them our very best. They stood up 
and defended our freedom, and we owe them all the highest quality of 
care to take care of them through our VA system, or through Veterans 
Choice, and the other types of programs that serve our veterans' 
community. Of course, we need to reform and do better in the VA.
  Again, rather than this kind of irresponsible, appeared-out-of-
nowhere magical bill that would actually penalize the very 
whistleblowers that we need to tell us about misconduct and would 
decrease morale even further in an agency where it has already been 
impacted, let's start fresh. Let's work together. Let's go back to 
committee. Let's come up with a thoughtful approach to improving the 
VA. And let's make this happen.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this has to be the slowest magic 
trick I have ever seen in my life. This actually, as written, was 
introduced and also noticed for amendment 2 months ago--sort of a delay 
in timing. That is a pretty good magic trick. I guess in the last 2 
months, you haven't had a chance to read it. Oh, well.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. In those 2 months, why wasn't there a time for this to go 
through the committee process and regular order?
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  The vast bulk of this bill did. H.R. 1994 passed out of this House. 
Frankly, this is a good bill that needs to move forward, and it is a 
protection of bad workers at the expense of the veterans. If you want 
to vote against this then that is what you are saying. You are wanting 
to vote to protect bad workers instead of getting the VA where it needs 
to go.
  Sixteen whistleblower groups have said this is the strongest 
whistleblower protection they have ever seen. So this idea that you are 
punishing whistleblowers is, again, just a myth.
  I just have one thing, Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman 
from Oregon. Thirty days to respond to showing up drunk for surgery in 
one of the examples that I gave? You don't need 30 days to respond to 
that. You need to be fired immediately. So I am not sure what the 
argument is here.
  I will agree with my friend from Colorado that we need to fix this. I 
think we may have different ways to go about it. But again, at the 
expense of the good workers at the VA, we need to address this.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Walden).

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and the gentleman for 
yielding and for his comments. You are so spot on.
  On Saturday morning in Medford, Oregon, I met with about 40 veterans 
who are furious about the delays in getting access to care, and the 
fact that they can't maintain providers at the local facility. And, by 
the way, that is not unique just there. I don't know about you, but I 
am hearing all across my district, all across Oregon, that these 
clinics and hospitals are having trouble recruiting people, keeping 
people. Morale is already bad, and part of it is because there is this 
lack of discipline.
  I agree, Mr. Collins, that if you are a surgeon and you showed up 
drunk for the surgery, we are going to give you 30 days to dry out and 
explain yourself? Are you kidding me? If you were a pilot and showed up 
drunk for the flight, I can tell you what happens, right? You are done. 
And so this is part of the problem.
  The people I represent, the veterans, as you say, the men and women 
who have fought for our freedom, as you have done, they want action, 
not delay. They want access to care in a timely manner. Everything in 
this bill, interestingly enough, came up in our discussion from them. 
How come you are paying bonuses to people that aren't doing their job? 
Why do they get bonuses at all? Isn't that what we pay them to do? This 
bill fixes that. Why is it when we raise complaints internally, you 
know, there is retribution? This bill protects whistleblowers. Why 
isn't there more transparency about what happens inside the VA? This 
bill gets at that.
  Accountability and transparency will lead us to a better VA, and the 
dedicated men and women who work in those facilities will feel better 
about their organization if they know the people who are letting down 
the veterans that are around them are somehow held accountable. That is 
true in any organization. I was a small-business owner for 21 years 
with my wife. This wasn't a you show up drunk on the job and we will 
talk about it in a month. That is not how this works, and nobody 
expects that kind of thing.
  So, look, we need to reform the VA. We need to take care of our men 
and women in uniform. We need to claw back the bonuses. We need to get 
this ship righted. We have helped 5,000 veterans out of my office over 
the last number of years--5,000.
  Ask yourself this: Why do we all have to have staff in our district 
offices to help veterans work their way through the bureaucracy to get 
the help that they have earned and deserve? Yet we all do because we 
care and we want to help. But somewhere you have to back up and go: Why 
do we all have to hire people to help these veterans get to that point? 
That shouldn't be necessary. They ought to be embraced by the agency. 
They ought to be cared for immediately, and it should be a complete 
last resort that they have to actually track down their Member of 
Congress to say: ``Can you help bust through the bureaucracy because my 
loved one doesn't get access to care?'' or ``I can't get access to 
care.''
  This is fundamentally a broken system that needs repair. I think we 
all agree on that. That is not a partisan issue. None of this should 
be. We should protect whistleblower rights. This bill does that. We 
should recoup the bonuses when they were given to undeserving 
employees, and we should increase transparency. But most of all, we 
should start with what matters most, and that is the veteran, and build 
everything out from there. That should be our foremost commitment and 
our starting place, what is best for that veteran and that veteran's 
family.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I 
want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), my colleague 
and the ranking member, for his work on this important issue as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to see that my amendment was not made 
in order. I would like to take this opportunity, really, to expand on 
something the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) had to say.
  Congressman Takano and I had simply offered an amendment that would 
ensure we could improve the process for removing employees for 
misconduct or performance that warrants removal. It is reprehensible, 
and it ought to take action.
  This amendment that we introduced mirrored legislation introduced by 
our colleagues Senator Johnny Isakson and Senator Richard Blumenthal. 
They have developed, by contrast, a bipartisan bill, the Veterans First 
Act, which will be a critical step to achieving true accountability 
that the VA so desperately needs to be an efficient agency for the men 
and women who serve this Nation. It has more than 44 cosponsors, 
including Senator Boozman, Senator Blunt, Senator Rounds, Senator 
Daines. All have supported language that we merely requested be in the 
bill to improve accountability at the VA that is sorely needed, while

[[Page H5360]]

also protecting--and we have heard this a lot from our colleagues on 
the other side--due process: the due process of the whistleblower, the 
due process of people who are employed in the Federal Government.
  We have a bipartisan-supported bill in the Senate that will take 
much-needed steps for comprehensive due process and accountability 
within the VA. This is what the American people despise. Here we are in 
total agreement on what we need to do with veterans, but because of 
talking points, in the House we are at a difference for political 
messaging. We shouldn't make veterans the point of political messaging.
  We ought to make sure that the veterans get the kind of service that 
they need, and when we have a bill in the Senate that is bipartisanly 
approved and accepted and does just that, that is the kind of bill that 
we ought to embrace.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my friend from Connecticut, and the 
issue was there were two Takano amendments. One is made in order that 
does a similar thing, but also to simply say that the Senate bill, 
which was reported out in May, has never been taken up in the Senate 
because they have had significant opposition to it. In fact, the only 
way they got it reported out was union groups and others, they had to 
make changes to it to get their agreement.
  I think at this point we are putting veterans first, not these 
outside interest groups. I think we just need to understand that the 
Senate bill has not moved. The Senate bill, in fact, has not passed out 
of the Senate and shows no hope of passing out of the Senate at this 
point, and so why should we take that, frankly, product and come over 
here when we have a bill that can move.
  We are offering as many of these amendments as possible. We are going 
to be voting on my friend from California's amendment as well today. 
These are the kinds of things where I think we just need to look at 
this bill for what it is. It is helping veterans. The bottom line is 
not just simply saying this is what we are doing. This is coming from 
VA employees, VA employees who are saying help us not be, you know, 
categorized with all the other things that are going on and with those 
that are actually bringing what we do down, and also trying to help the 
appeals process in this situation.
  So I appreciate the words of the Members, Mr. Speaker, coming forward 
on this, but let's also be very honest with what is happening in both 
Chambers of the bicameral legislature. We have one bill over there that 
is not going anywhere that was reported out. We have an amendment that 
will be voted on today that reflects the gentleman from California's 
concern. We will see how that will be decided by this body. We are 
moving forward on a bill that will actually help, and we encourage 
everybody to be a part of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter) will control the remainder of the time of the 
minority.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying 
bill. All of us, Democrats and Republicans, believe in the need for 
stronger accountability for employees at the VA to ensure that our 
veterans get the care they deserve. Unfortunately, this legislation 
will fall short of that goal and, in doing so, set accountability 
efforts back for at least a year, if not more.
  Our Senate colleagues have a bipartisan bill that includes 
accountability provisions that could serve as a foundation for 
legislation in the House. It doesn't mean it is perfect; it doesn't 
mean in its current form it would be voted out of the Senate; but it is 
a far more bipartisan approach than the one that is before us today. We 
have an opportunity to advance language that both parties in both 
Chambers can agree to and would contribute to a more accountable and 
more effective VA.
  H.R. 1994 and the current bill before us, H.R. 5620, both contain 
flawed accountability tools, tools which, if the VA used them, would 
likely result in adverse judgments in the courts and cost a lot of time 
and money pursuing with the likely result of those employees being 
reinstated.
  Democrats are ready to work with the majority to find the right path 
forward. That is why 75 Democratic or bipartisan amendments were 
submitted to the Committee on Rules. Unfortunately, only 22 amendments 
were made in order to be considered by the full Chamber.
  One of my amendments not made in order included a crucial fix to 
support and protect student veterans who have their education cut short 
by a school's abrupt closure. When a college or university like ITT 
Tech or Corinthian shutters its doors on short notice, student veterans 
enrolled at these institutions are routinely left with their GI Bill 
and Yellow Ribbon benefits severely weakened or even depleted and with 
no degree or job prospects to show for it. There is urgency to put a 
fix in place, and my amendment would do that.
  There are no means in place for a student veteran enrolled at one of 
these institutions to get any part of their educational benefits 
restored, and many also lose their housing benefits, which student 
veterans depend on as a crucial source of housing support.
  The bipartisan amendment I submitted with Representative Susan Brooks 
would have restored post-9/11 GI Bill benefits and training time to 
veterans who are negatively affected by a school's sudden closure, and 
it would also allow the VA to continue paying student veterans a 
monthly housing stipend for a short time following a permanent school 
closure.
  There are even more important amendments that this House won't get to 
consider.
  Congresswoman DelBene from Washington State offered an amendment to 
update the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, including LGBT 
representatives, and ensure that this committee better addresses the 
needs of all minorities.
  My colleague, Congressman Walz, offered an amendment to extend the 
original deadline issued by the Agent Orange Act of 1991 to ensure that 
Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange receive just compensation and 
care.
  Another colleague on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
Congresswoman Kuster, offered an amendment to help improve access to 
care for veterans and strengthen the healthcare workforce by creating a 
pilot program to train physician assistants who agree to work at the VA 
in underserved communities.
  She also submitted an amendment to address the opioid crisis by 
creating a pilot program that improves pain management for veterans 
suffering from opioid addiction and chronic pain. It also requires the 
VA to assess its ability to treat opioid dependency. It also requires 
increased access to opioid overdose reversal medication at VA 
facilities.
  Access to care and reducing opioid addiction are some of the most 
pressing issues facing veterans today, yet neither of her amendments 
were made in order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. TAKANO. Instead, the majority has once again introduced a 
partisan bill that violates the due process rights of VA employees and 
includes several provisions that are likely to be overturned by our 
justice system, which is why the Department of Justice, Office of 
Personnel Management, and the VA itself have all raised serious 
objections.
  Even though 30 percent of VA employees are veterans themselves, the 
majority is treating their constitutional rights as inconvenient 
obstacles to evade instead of fundamental civil service protections to 
uphold.
  Finally, I believe that the majority's efforts to institute new 
whistleblower provisions would be overturned for the same reason that 
the U.S. Attorney General's office said it would not defend an 
unconstitutional section of the

[[Page H5361]]

Choice Act. It violates the Appointments Clause in the Constitution by 
allowing lower level government employees to have the final 
decisionmaking authority to decide whether an employee will be fired.
  These are more than minor legal concerns. They are reasons why VA 
employees who commit misconduct will not be held accountable when their 
terminations are challenged in court. We can pass H.R. 5620, but we 
will be right back here a year from now or 2 years from now when the 
law is deemed unconstitutional.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bill.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I feel for the passion of my friend from California, but let's also 
get back to some issues of fact here. His amendment that was not made 
in order would not have helped the ITT Tech students. In fact, the VA 
itself has already said it wouldn't. By the way, it also costs $50 
million. It wouldn't help the very ones we are claiming it would help, 
but the VA says this, not us.
  Again, are we wanting to help somebody or make, again, a political 
statement about a bill that you are trying to figure out a way to vote 
against?
  Maybe that is what we are doing here.
  Also, this issue of bipartisanship. Thirty pieces of legislation have 
been passed on VA, of which 29 have had Democrat or bipartisan 
provisions added in them in this Congress. By the way, the Senate has 
passed none of those. If you want to know who is actually working to 
fix the problems in the VA, it is the House.
  To keep bringing up and having a baseline and say we need the 
baseline of a Senate bill that can't move, I mean, that is like saying 
that I still want to play football for the Atlanta Falcons. It is not 
happening. It is a great, I guess, aspirational goal, but they haven't 
called me lately.
  So let's move something that actually works. This idea that it is 
going to be struck down in court, I am an attorney; it is conjecture. 
You don't have a ruling that says that. You can say it all you want. I 
can go to the good judge from Texas, Mr. Speaker. Nobody has made a 
ruling. So it is conjecture. It sounds good in an argument if you are 
trying to find a reason to vote against it.
  This bill would harm veterans because veterans make up 35 percent of 
the VA's workforce. This one is the one that bothers me a little bit. 
As someone who still serves, when you go through training and you 
work--and many in this room have served--you are trained in the 
military to the highest expectations of your service every day. And if 
you are forced to work with people who do not live up to those 
expectations, then the immediate punishment in the military is real, 
severe, and actual. This is ridiculous. We are lowering the standard 
for appeal when you have done something.
  There has been this argument that we are just picking on the low-
level employees. No, it is not. It is for everyone all the way up the 
chain.
  In my own home State, Mr. Speaker, we had a gentleman who was 
directly implicated in the scheduling issues in Augusta and asked for a 
transfer to Atlanta because he was not liking the working conditions in 
Augusta. He should have never got a transfer to Decatur. He should have 
been fired and prosecuted.
  Now, if we want to keep coming up with reasons to vote against this 
bill, fine and dandy. Keep it up.
  When we look at the honesty here of the questions and we look at how 
we are discussing this and some of the amendments that were made in 
order, let's go back to the amendments. Sixteen Democrat amendments 
made in order, five Republican, one bipartisan. Many of the 
applications had dual meaning. They were doing basically the same 
thing, so we made some in order. And then some of the amendments that 
were not made in order would not have done what they said they were 
going to do anyway.
  So we are about a rule, about a bill. If you want to vote against it, 
if you would rather put the appeals process of bad employees ahead of 
VA actual services and veterans who need it, then vote against it. But 
you just framed it.
  Go spin that one to your local veterans service organizations who 
support these kinds of measures. Go spin that one to them. It is not 
going to work. They are not buying it. I have been there for a while.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a serious proposal to reform the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, although we certainly know that needs 
to be done. I think a major bill should be in order to get that done. 
And the Veterans Administration is vastly overstretched and we are 
concerned for the safety and healing of the veterans. My personal hope 
is that we can get them out of the building business and just do the 
business of taking care of veterans' health and concerns.
  We should also be voting on a bill that includes the funding that we 
need to address the Zika virus. The head of the Centers for Disease 
Control, Tom Frieden, recently warned that, ``The cupboard is bare. 
Basically, we are out of money and we need Congress to act.''
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would fully fund the 
administration's request to address this public health crisis. This 
request was made more than 7 months ago to help combat the spread of 
this virus, when I think we would have done better to control it and 
accelerate research into finding a vaccine. We have, instead, just been 
left behind in trying to get caught up on some of that. Over that time, 
the virus is spreading at an alarming rate, as the range of mosquito 
transmission far exceeds the initial estimates. It is beyond time for 
us to finally act. Just today, I read that they have discovered that 
the Zika virus can cause brain damage to adults, not just to fetuses.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
ordering the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I guess, as they always try to say, you start off with 
something positive. So I will start with positive.
  I agree with the gentlewoman from New York: they need to get out of 
the building business. They have proved totally incompetent. I agree 
completely. But then let's get back to the bill. Let's get back to what 
we have talked about.
  What is amazing to me in this whole rules debate, and I am sure will 
happen in the general debate on this bill, is there is going to be a 
lot of reasons given to vote ``no'' and to say this due process or this 
employee or that. But the bottom line is, when you look at the 
evidence, I understand we all have constituencies that have different 
opinions, but at the Veterans Administration there is only one 
constituency that matters, and that is the veteran who has served, who 
is to be served, and to have their dedication honored.
  To actually come before this body and advocate for a bill that can't 
pass the Senate after it has been watered down, that can't move 
forward, to advocate to say that we are making every excuse in the 
world like, You are going to make them at-will employees at the VA--I 
heard this last night. No, you are not. There is still the same hiring 
programs. It is just that, if you do something wrong, there is going to 
be a process to actually remove you. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if the 
Secretary at the VA can't do the things he should do, then maybe he 
should be removed.

  At this point in time, this House and the Senate, this Congress, and 
even this administration, have acted. We have provided funds, we have 
provided resources, and we have provided direction. But you cannot 
continue to keep

[[Page H5362]]

building on a faulty foundation. If you can't get rid of the bad actors 
in this, if you can't have an appeals process in which somebody can get 
an answer in a shorter time than 3 years, there is a problem.
  Here is the framing of that, Mr. Speaker. If you believe that is 
okay, then vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' on the 
rule, and vote ``no'' on the bill. If you think the Senate can pass 
something, wait for them. But as they say, for such a time as this, you 
have a moment. It is a moment of choosing. It is a time to decide: Are 
we going to continue to make excuses or are we going to put the 
veterans first--and those veterans who actually work within the VA 
system, who are tired of watching others abuse it?
  To actually say, again, Mr. Speaker, that you are going to harm the 
veterans who work for the VA by disciplining bad employees is an 
affront to every veteran who works at the VA, every Active Duty 
servicemember, every reservist and guardsman who have lived to the 
highest standards of honor and integrity and doing their job.
  There are bad actors everywhere, even in the military; and when 
found, they are handled efficiently and quickly. That exists everywhere 
else except here.
  So if you want to continue the status quo, then make speeches. If you 
want to move something forward and work toward a solution, then you 
vote ``yes'' on the previous question, you vote ``yes'' on the rule, 
and you vote ``yes'' on the bill.
  Then you can go home to your veterans service organizations and 
people trying to get help and say: I tried to move something. I am 
actually moving for you.
  Or you can go back and say: You know, I am protecting the employees 
and the unions and the appeals process and due process while all at the 
point in time our veterans are dying because they can't get services.
  Easy choice, Mr. Speaker. Easy choice.
  With that, I challenge my colleagues to continue to work on this 
issue. We can disagree, but that disagreement should never stop us from 
helping the veterans who need help to lower their appeals time, to get 
the sufficient organization that they deserve and this country 
deserves. Not just our veterans, but our taxpayers, the citizens who 
look up to this Government, they deserve a functioning, operating 
system that meets the needs to the highest integrity that they have 
been given charge to.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 859 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     5044) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2016 
     to respond to Zika virus. 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 among 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Appropriations and the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 5044.

        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. COLLINS of Georgia. 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 859, if 
ordered; ordering the previous question on House Resolution 858; and 
adopting House Resolution 858, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 170, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 498]

                               YEAS--237

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris

[[Page H5363]]


     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     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)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     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
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Brady (PA)
     Castor (FL)
     Cicilline
     Costa
     DesJarlais
     Duckworth
     Fincher
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hinojosa
     Israel
     Johnson, Sam
     Kirkpatrick
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Meeks
     Meng
     Palazzo
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Rush
     Schiff
     Sewell (AL)
     Wagner

                              {time}  1419

  Mr. LOEBSACK and Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. ZINKE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 169, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 499]

                               YEAS--241

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--169

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz

[[Page H5364]]


     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Brady (PA)
     Cicilline
     DesJarlais
     Duckworth
     Fincher
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hinojosa
     Israel
     Johnson, Sam
     Kirkpatrick
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Meeks
     Meng
     Palazzo
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pompeo
     Rush
     Schiff
     Sewell (AL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1426

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________