Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 138 (Tuesday, September 13, 2016)

[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

[[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.

____________________