[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 177 (Thursday, December 8, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H7403-H7412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2028,
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2016, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 612, GEORGE P. KAZEN
FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 949 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 949
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
2028) making appropriations for energy and water development
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2016, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment
thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention
of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the
Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting
of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-70 modified by the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment and the
motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening
motion.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (S. 612) to designate
the Federal building and United States courthouse located at
1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ``George P.
Kazen Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 114-69 shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided among and controlled by the respective chairs and
ranking minority members of the Committees on Energy and
Commerce, Natural Resources, and Transportation and
Infrastructure; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Georgia is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, when you asked me to clarify the number of
the resolution, I am reminded of my mother when she used to ask me if I
wanted to take out the trash. She was not asking me if I wanted to take
out the trash. She was suggesting, very politely, that it was my
responsibility to get out of my chair and get out there and take out
that trash. I think about all of the folks that invest themselves in
our success here. When you give me a chance to clarify, candidly, I am
a little surprised that I need to because I am surrounded by a team of
excellence. I should have just spoken it right back to you.
We have two bills today, Mr. Speaker, that are the result of a whole
lot of mothers, a whole lot of staffers, and a whole lot of
constituents asking the Members of Congress if they would like to take
out the trash, telling folks that they have responsibilities that need
to be handled and they need to be handled now.
It is two bills that this rule makes in order for consideration
today, Mr. Speaker. It is S. 612, which is the Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation Act. That is what they call it on the
Senate side. On our side, it is the Water Resources Development Act,
the WRDA bill, a bill that authorizes projects one by one, considered
by the U.S. House of Representatives, not led by the agencies, but led
by the people's House, and directed to the agencies for accomplishment.
The second bill is H.R. 2028. It is the continuing resolution bill
for FY 2017 funding, Mr. Speaker. I don't need to tell you--you know
the Appropriations Committee well--but this year, for the first time
since the people of the Seventh District of Georgia entrusted me with a
voting card, we passed an appropriations bill on time. We did it for
our veterans. It was signed by the President of the United States
before the end of the fiscal year. We took a step at getting back
towards regular order a commitment we have all made to one another, and
a commitment that this funding bill will bring to fruition.
It is not what any of us would have wanted on day one, it is not the
way any of us believed that we could have completed this process had we
had more time, but it is the proper way to make sure that certainty,
rather than uncertainty, governs this land.
I have got my colleague from the Rules Committee and the
Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) here
with me, Mr. Speaker, so I won't belabor that side of the issue. But
what I do want to talk about is something I know well, and that is the
WRDA bill.
[[Page H7404]]
The WRDA bill, Mr. Speaker, this Water Infrastructure Improvements
for the Nation Act, came out of the Transportation Committee on which I
have the great privilege of serving.
The Transportation Committee, Mr. Speaker, is one of those rare
committees that you don't read about on CNN's Web site, you don't see
it on FOX News, or MSNBC. On the Transportation Committee, we get
together--Republicans and Democrats--and we talk it out. We talk it out
because it turns out that if what you are interested in, as citizens of
Florida and the Everglades and Port Everglades and the restoration of
those marvelous natural resources down there, that is not just a
Florida issue, that is an American issue. If you are interested, as my
friends from South Carolina are, in dredging the port in Charleston and
making that a world class shipping opportunity, that is not just a
South Carolina issue, that is an American issue.
If you are like my friends all across this country, Mr. Speaker, from
New Hampshire to California, to Texas, to Colorado, you have projects
that are vitally important not just to your constituency, but to the
economy of the United States of America; and that is what we do on the
Transportation Committee. The Transportation Committee is a success if
we can help you get to work a little bit faster. We are a success if we
can get your kids to that soccer game just a little bit faster. But we
are committed to moving freight, goods, and services produced by
American hands with American labor to their destinations not just
across this land, but across this planet. That is what the WRDA bill,
controlling those ports and waterways through which so much commerce
moves, controls.
Mr. Speaker, I talked about regular order a little bit earlier. I
have to brag, if I can here, at what may be our last day together. When
the chairman of the Transportation Committee, Bill Shuster from the
great State of Pennsylvania, took over the Transportation Committee, he
said: These projects are so important. This bipartisan commitment to
the American economy is so important. I am not going to let it get
delayed.
Now, I confess that we are here on the last day, perhaps, of our time
together. It looked for awhile like we might not be able to move this
through; but our chairman, through the power of persuasion, fought day
in and day out not for 1 year, but for 2 years, to ensure that we could
build on the success, which was the WRDA bill in 2014, and bring yet
another WRDA bill in 2016.
I will say to my friends: If you did not get everything you wanted, I
promise you, as our friend, Kevin McCarthy, from California likes to
say, You needed everything you got. Even if you didn't get everything
that you needed, we are going to do this again.
That is what is so great about regular order here, Mr. Speaker. When
there is only one train leaving the station, we can't work together on
issues. We have got to jam it all in there and we have got to pack
everything in because we have only got one chance to serve the people
who elected us.
When we get back to regular order, when we know there is another bill
coming tomorrow and another bill coming the next day, and another bill
coming the next day, it gives us an opportunity to achieve these things
one small step at a time. If your constituents are like mine, Mr.
Speaker, they didn't send me here to yank the pendulum back and forth
from left to right. They sent me here to make a little bit of progress
one day at a time.
The WRDA bill exemplifies the very best of us in that way. It
represents small steps in almost every jurisdiction in this institution
to grow the American economy, to serve our constituents back home, to
make sure that the American taxpayer is getting a dollar's worth of
value out of a dollar's worth of their tax dollar.
If you can't tell, Mr. Speaker, I am tremendously proud of this work
that has gone into this bill. My great hope is that my colleagues will
support this rule so that we can move on to support that underlying
legislation later on this morning.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to present my opposing view. I thank
my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the new fiscal year began more than 2 months ago. Yet,
here we are again, considering another continuing resolution just hours
ahead of a midnight Friday deadline to fund the Federal Government.
Make no mistake, we are here today up against the threat of another
shutdown because of the majority's inability to do its most basic job
of funding the government.
It is a shame that we have, once again, resorted to short-term
measures instead of passing long-term appropriations bills. In fact,
the last time that Congress enacted all 12 regular appropriations bills
on time was 1994.
As a result, the Chamber continues lurching from crisis to crisis.
This is the same type of leadership that has brought our Nation years
of political brinksmanship, including fiscal cliffs, near defaults on
our national debt, and a government shutdown as recently as 2013, which
experts from Standard & Poor's estimate to have taken $24 billion out
of our economy.
And for what, Mr. Speaker?
So that the majority can play politics with government spending and
try to negotiate a more conservative, partisan appropriations package
with a Trump administration and a Congress under one-party Republican
rule.
It is especially troubling that the majority has taken the
unprecedented step of including a provision in this spending bill to
change the congressional rules to hasten the confirmation of President-
elect Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense, retired General James
Mattis. That should not be in this bill, Mr. Speaker, but was stuck in
here to expedite that movement.
The law that was changed clearly states that a Defense Secretary must
be out of uniform for 7 years to qualify for a waiver. Certainly that
was not done capriciously. It was done so that we can keep civilian
control of the military, which is one of the pillars of our democracy.
Now, I join with my colleagues in respecting General Mattis' lifetime
of service and his dedication to our Nation. At the same time, the
civilian leadership, as I have said, has been the cornerstone of our
democracy. To risk losing it risks losing a very precious and important
tenet of democracy that states that the United States military must be
under civilian control. That is no small thing, Mr. Speaker, but it
will be done here with a single vote.
I am pleased to see, however, that this package includes $100 million
in grant funding to Flint, Michigan, to address the ongoing water
crisis that has forced residents to drink and bathe in poisoned water
for years. Mr. Speaker, I am painfully aware of the lifelong impacts
that children will be forced to live with as a result of toxic metal in
their water. The neurodevelopmental damage will be staggering, in
addition to impacts including hypertension, renal impairment, and
anemia. We know that we have to protect the water we have, Mr. Speaker,
because we don't manufacture it.
The resolution before us today would also bring up the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act. I join my colleague
from Georgia in saying how important a bill this is. Those of us who
abut the Great Lakes are happy that the Great Lakes Restoration money
is there, which will help to remediate 20 percent of the world's fresh
water contained in those five lakes.
It will also increase funding for dredging small harbors, like the
Port of Rochester, which ships and receives an average of 95,000 tons
of material each year. Commodities that pass through this port generate
more than $6 million in local salaries through my district each year.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the majority has stripped important language from
it, including the Buy American provisions, which we are perplexed by,
since they have been in there for years in the past.
{time} 0930
When asked the question of why it is not there, we really didn't get
a straight answer; but the Buy American provisions would require the
Federal Government projects to use steel that was made here in America.
It is especially disappointing, since President-
[[Page H7405]]
elect Donald Trump has built several of his hotels with Chinese-made
steel despite his pledging to ``Make America Great Again.'' The
majority also removed a provision that would have allowed us to utilize
funds to improve port and harbor reliability that sit idle in the U.S.
Treasury.
One other issue that was concerning to us was that the CR does not
extend a provision from all of the past years' omnibus bills that
exempt returning foreign workers from the H-2B visa. I don't know of
any issue most recently that has caused more consternation in my
office. I have had almost 100 calls from all over the country saying
that they are very dependent on it; and our colleague, Congressman Long
from Missouri, said yesterday that it was critical to the State of
Missouri to get this in. Unfortunately, we were unable to do that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a member both of the Rules Committee and a
subcommittee chairman on the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. COLE. I thank my good friend for being so generous in yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both the rule and the underlying
legislation.
I begin by sharing my friend from Georgia's enthusiasm for the WRDA
bill. I think this was an absolutely masterful piece of work by three
chairmen. Obviously, primarily, Chairman Shuster is the architect; but
I was also working with him on several important Indian issues and with
Chairman Bishop from the Committee on Natural Resources and, on the
Flint issue in particular, with Chairman Upton from Energy and
Commerce.
I share my friend's belief that these projects have been worked
through in a bipartisan way. Many, many good things, literally, in
every part of the country will take place, and our friends on the other
side of the aisle were very cooperative in that as well. This is
usually a bipartisan effort. It certainly was in this case.
I am very pleased about Flint. There was, frankly, failure at every
level of government--Federal, State, and local. I am glad that the
Congress is following up on the commitment of the Speaker and of our
good friend from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), who has been the leader,
obviously, in this and is doing the right thing there.
Again, the water projects, themselves, touch almost every district in
the country--certainly, every State in the country.
I want to particularly point out the Indian provisions in here, which
often get overlooked. We did some really important things in working
with Mr. Bishop and Mr. Shuster in common. We settled a number of
really important individual Indian water case issues. I think the
Pechanga case, for instance, which I know my friend the Speaker is
familiar with, has been around for many years. We also changed the
definitions in law so Indian tribes can now compete for water projects
and water funding, particularly in some of the areas. Again, my friend
the Speaker has seen some of these shortages in infrastructure as we
traveled to reservations around the country together; so putting these
people in a position to make sure they have access to funds to deal
with water is important.
Finally, for my own State--extremely important--and at no cost to the
Federal Government, the Chickasaws, the Choctaws, the city of Oklahoma
City, and the State of Oklahoma negotiated a water settlement
arrangement inside of Oklahoma for the appropriate distribution of
water. That requires Federal approval because there is a trust
responsibility. We got the deal done, frankly, relatively late this
year. We got tremendous cooperation in Congress and in the Senate.
Certainly, Jim Inhofe played a big role over there by getting it in the
bill in order to get that memorialized and done in an expeditious
fashion. We are very grateful for that.
When it comes to the CR, I certainly support the CR, and I certainly
appreciate very much the work that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member
Lowey did to adjust, as much as possible, this short-term funding
measure to try and deal with what we call around here ``anomalies'' and
try to get the money to where it is supposed to go. There are many good
things, again, in this short-term funding bill through April 28, my
birthday, so perhaps this will work out in the end. Of course, it is
also Saddam Hussein's birthday, so that doesn't always work out too
well.
At the end of the day, we ought to look at this process. I find
myself in agreement with my good friend from New York on many of the
things that she had to say. We should be negotiating an omnibus bill.
We have the time to do it. We were told, when we passed the short-term
CR in late September, that that is what we would do in this timeframe.
I can assure you, because they did it last year, that Chairman Rogers
and Ranking Member Lowey could do it again this year. We are pretty
close on all of these issues. It is a mistake, in my view, to push this
into next year. Next year, we will have to write the FY18 budget and do
the appropriations while we are simultaneously doing this, and the
temptation will be very great to just do another CR and pass this on.
While all of this seems like budget double-talk to the average
American, the reality is we have passed a lot of good legislation this
year, but the funding isn't matched up with the legislation that we
have passed. That is because we are relying on a continuing resolution
as opposed to doing the real hard work of appropriations. Last year,
when we did that, by the way, it provided us budget stability this
year. It got us out of a lot of the fights--and guess what. All of a
sudden, you end up with cures. All of a sudden, you end up with WRDA.
All of a sudden, you get a national defense authorization done, because
we have done the appropriate things.
The Appropriations Committee, I am quick to add, has done its work.
All 12 bills that fund the Federal Government passed out of
Appropriations--5 of them across this floor. I believe, with some of
the most contentious, like Interior, our problem partly is our friends
in the Senate who blocked up the deal, but we could have still finished
an omnibus bill this year.
I support this. I don't think we made a wise decision in the manner
in which we are proceeding, but, certainly, we don't want to shut down
the government. I just want to serve notice to my friends who made the
decision that I am going to hold their feet to the fire so that, in
April, we actually do what we said we were going to do and that we go
back to regular order.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address my concerns regarding WRDA. My home
district of Sacramento is the most at-risk major American city for
flooding, and with the damaging effects of our changing climate, that
risk is not going away. We sit at the confluence of two great rivers,
making flood control absolutely essential for the safety of my
constituents. That is why I have worked diligently for years to ensure
we are making the investments we need to protect our region; but our
levees are aging, which is why I have worked so strongly and fought for
the inclusion of two projects in this bill: the American River Common
Features and the West Sacramento projects. Combined, these projects
will result in almost $3 billion worth of lifesaving investments in my
region.
This isn't just about protecting a few buildings. The area that these
projects support protect upwards of 400,000 people. It includes four
major highway systems, an international airport, the State capitol, and
a major water and electric grid.
This is about protecting the future of my beloved city of Sacramento,
which is why I am so disappointed that WRDA has become a vehicle for a
poison pill. The drought language that was airdropped into this bill at
the last minute pits one region of California against another. It will
be detrimental to northern California's economy and environment, and I
am concerned about its impact on our region's water supply.
I share my colleagues' concerns about the drought, but we need to
work together on a solution that takes the
[[Page H7406]]
well-being of every part of our State into account. It is extremely
unfortunate that WRDA is being used as a vehicle for legislation that
we should consider as a stand-alone bill, especially given the careful
bipartisan work that our colleagues have put into this legislative
package.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my friend from California for her comments.
She is absolutely right. I talked so much about the economics of
WRDA, and she talked about the truly lifesaving aspects of WRDA. We are
talking about flood control in so many of these projects. She mentioned
the West Sacramento projects in California. Just going through
California alone, Mr. Speaker, the American River Common Features
project, the San Diego County storm risk reduction project, the South
San Francisco Bay Shoreline project, the Los Angeles River project are
all being worked through and approved. These projects are not just
going to put people to work. These projects are going to make people
safer.
I thank my colleague for recognizing that and for helping to
celebrate that with me.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we can defeat the previous question
this morning, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up
legislation that would set aside excess funds from the Abandoned Mine
Land fund for the miners' health benefits and pension plans. We must do
everything we can to protect the benefits that our hardworking miners
have earned throughout the years.
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 yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. I thank the gentlewoman from New York.
Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago, United Mine Workers of America President
John L. Lewis--a lifetime Republican--crossed party lines to work with
President Roosevelt and his administration to make a deal to end a
nationwide coal strike. The deal ended up promising health and pension
benefits for miners in this country in exchange for their lifetime of
hard work. It was a promise that the Federal Government has kept since
then. Every year, no matter who the President is, no matter who is in
control of the Congress, it is a promise that our Nation has kept every
single year for 70 years; but, Mr. Speaker, that is about to change.
Right now, 22,500 coal miners in West Virginia, in Ohio, in my own
home State of Pennsylvania, and across coal country are facing a
complete loss of their health and pension benefits during 2017. It
breaks the long-time promise between the coal industry, its workers,
and the Federal Government.
The continuing resolution before us purports to fix this problem by
ensuring that 16,300 miners who would lose their health care on
December 31 are taken care of. However, this is only a short-term Band-
Aid, 4-month patch for health care, which leaves miners worse off in
April than they are today. Most importantly, this CR does absolutely
nothing to solve the pension problem--this in return for a lifetime of
hard and dangerous work.
There are actual long-term solutions available that this body should
be considering. The Miners Protection Act would fix both the health
care and pensions for miners permanently. I repeat, it fixes the
problems permanently.
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no reason for the short-term patch
the majority is proposing here today. Miners across Pennsylvania have
risked their health and safety to secure better lives for their
families. They have dedicated their careers to ensuring that U.S.
factories have the energy to continue to work and that our homes,
schools, and workplaces can keep their lights on. This country became a
great country on the backs of our hardworking coal miners. We should
not be turning our backs on them now.
Mr. Speaker, the great American lawyer, Clarence Darrow, came to
Scranton in the midst of one of these coal strikes, and he got to know
the coal miners. Here is what he said about them:
These are men who toil while other men grow rich, men who
go down into the Earth and face greater dangers than men who
go out upon the sea or out upon the land in battle, men who
have little to hope for, little to think of excepting work.
These are men, men like any others, who, in the midst of
sorrow, travail, and a severe and cruel crisis, demeaned
themselves as nobly, as bravely, as loyally as any body of
men who ever lived and suffered and died for the benefit of
the generations that are yet to come.
Darrow was right, Mr. Speaker. We need to protect the health care and
pensions of our miners and create new jobs throughout our coal regions.
The commonsense, bipartisan Miners Protection Act would give miners
across Pennsylvania and the rest of coal country the peace of mind of
knowing that the retirements they worked all of their lives for are
secure.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to fix our partisan spending issues
at the expense of the American worker. We have to keep the promises we
made to our hardworking men and women. That is why I urge my colleagues
to do just that and agree to this motion to defeat the previous
question so that we can bring up and include important legislation to
protect our coal miners' pensions and health care.
{time} 0945
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democrat leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for
her superior service on the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, across America today, hardworking people and seniors
find that their retirement security is under threat and in doubt.
Congress has a responsibility to strengthen Americans' retirement
security, and we dishonor that responsibility with the half measure for
coal miners in the CR today--less than a half measure.
I commend Congressman Cartwright of Pennsylvania. He knows full well
the contribution that the coal miners have made to our economy. He
knows the stress that they are under from what is happening now and how
this is exacerbated by the continuing resolution.
Mr. Speaker, 22,500 coal miners in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio,
and across coal country are facing a complete loss of their health and
pension benefits in 2017. However, the continuing resolution offers
these men and women only a short term.
Senator Manchin has been making the pitch, and many of us have joined
him, that these health and pension benefits should be in our
legislation at least for 5 years, preferably in perpetuity.
What the CR says is: not in perpetuity, not in 5 years--for 4 months;
for 4 months and only health benefits, completely ignoring the pension
part of it.
Coal miners are on the Hill today to make their case, to tell their
personal stories about how this has affected them. After a lifetime of
service and in a culture built around that industry, they trusted that
their pension and their health benefits would be there. But their
companies went bankrupt.
Think of this, my colleagues. If you, anyone in your family, or any
of your constituents were working a lifetime in a company, in an
industry, and that company went bankrupt, and the answer to you is:
Tough luck. We went bankrupt. Your pension went down the drain.
It is absolutely criminal. It is absolutely criminal.
The CR offers a short-term, 4-month patch for health care and leaves
the miners worse off in April than they are now.
I thank Senator Manchin for taking the lead in such a forceful way,
and I thank Matt Cartwright for leading us here.
In hope that we could defeat this rule, I urge my Republican
colleagues who are from coal country in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West
Virginia--and coal country goes beyond. Virginia is one of the biggest
coal-producing States, though you might not realize it. The CR does
nothing, does nothing to solve the critical pension problem that
threatens the future of these miners and their families.
[[Page H7407]]
With our previous question, Democrats, led by Congressman Cartwright,
are calling on Republicans to do better. We should be voting on
commonsense, bipartisan legislation that would give miners in coal
country the peace of mind of knowing that their retirements that they
worked for all their lives are secure.
Mr. McKinley of West Virginia, a Republican, has led the way with the
Miners Protection Act. It is a bipartisan bill. It has 87 cosponsors,
and we would like to defeat this rule so that we can bring up Mr.
McKinley's Miners Protection Act.
The bipartisan bill would transfer funds in excess of the amounts
needed to meet existing legislation under the Abandoned Mine Land fund
to the United Mine Workers 1974 pension plan to prevent its insolvency.
The funds are there. They just need to be transferred. Mr. McKinley's
bill does that.
Make certain retirees who lose healthcare benefits following the
bankruptcy or insolvency of his or her employer eligible for benefits.
As these families head toward the holiday season, we must ensure they
can celebrate knowing that the health and pension benefits they
earned--they have earned--will always be there for them.
I was disappointed that, in the CR, we did not have an extender for
some renewable initiatives, renewable alternatives. But we were told by
the Speaker's Office that our guys are fossil fuel guys. They are not
interested in the renewables.
Okay. I respect that. If you are fossil fuel guys, why aren't you
looking out for the fossil fuel people who have worked under dangerous
circumstances for their lives, going into unsafe situations, breathing
air that has created problems for their health, and now the companies
have declared bankruptcy or insolvency. Tough luck for the workers.
Mr. McKinley knows that is not right. That is why he introduced the
bill. Mr. Cartwright knows that is not right. That is why he is
supporting the bill. And that is why Democrats come to the floor today
to urge Republicans to express their concern for their constituents in
the fossil fuel industry to do justice to them for the service they
have provided for the benefits, pension, and health care they are
entitled to.
So we will see what the commitment is of the Republicans in Congress
to the fossil fuel guys and gals. We will see on their vote here today.
Vote ``no'' on the bill so we can vote ``yes'' on the McKinley Miners
Protection Act.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from The Washington Post. It says, ``The
United Mine Workers of America's retirement and health-care funds
currently support about 120,000 former miners and their families
nationwide, but the account balances have rapidly declined as some coal
companies shed dues-paying workers and others filed for bankruptcy
protection.''
Mr. Speaker, this isn't unique to coal country. The promises are
unique to coal country, but bankruptcy is not unique to coal country.
What is unique about the bankruptcy in coal country is that
institutions like this helped to drive it along.
Mr. Speaker, what you haven't heard in this absolutely heartbreaking
tale is the government's complicity through shedding of dues-paying
workers and driving companies into bankruptcy, that the coal coming out
of the ground in America today is being brought out of the ground by
companies that are being forced into bankruptcy today. But that this
continuing resolution, while a partial fix, is a 100 percent fix for
the duration of the continuing resolution.
My friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) is my friend, and what
he says when he is talking passionately about the lives and what we can
do to make a difference in the lives of retired miners, he says with
100 percent heartfelt sincerity, and I am grateful to him for it.
And my friend from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), whose legislation is
the subject of this motion, believes in these people, believes in work,
believes in commitment to promises like no one else in this
institution, and I am proud to call him a friend as well.
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question in my mind that we have
a shared commitment, shared values, and we will find a shared solution.
I am reminded that the last time I found myself in this situation a
friend of mine from Michigan was standing right over there at that
podium. He too had a motion: if we defeated the previous question, he
would offer to help the people of Flint. And I stood here at this
microphone and said to my friend that he had a shared concern, that he
had a concern that was on the hearts of all of us in this institution,
and that we would come back and address his concern, though the forum
was not this one today.
With no sense of irony at all, Mr. Speaker, I tell you that this
underlying bill has those dollars for Flint in it today, that the
authorization for those projects are in the underlying bill today.
So I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, as I said to my friend from
Michigan, this is absolutely a shared concern. I am frustrated about
how we got here, and I believe we are going to disagree about where
blame lies in how we got here. How we fix it, however, is not dependent
on who is to blame for getting here. How we fix it is dependent on our
shared commitment to getting it done.
This is not the bill for that long-term fix. We have not had those
long-term conversations, Mr. Speaker, but we do have a 100 percent
commitment for the duration of the continuing resolution to make sure
those healthcare benefits continue. And I am proud that we, in a
bipartisan, bicameral way, found those dollars to do that right thing.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York
for her continued leadership, and let me also acknowledge my support of
her stance on the previous question and the eloquence of Mr. Cartwright
on a very, very important issue. I rise to be part of that.
Let me also join my good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) who said
that the appropriators did their work. The American people need to know
that. That is regular order, that the appropriation bills should have
come forward, and the needs of the American people, through their
Representatives in the people's House, should have been addressed. That
is not the case, Mr. Speaker.
So I rise with deep concern--one, as a neighbor to Louisiana, which I
know that funds are being allocated, but I realize the devastation
there; but also as a Representative of the State of Texas and the 18th
Congressional District, where we face a continuous barrage of rains and
flooding, that we need continued relief from flooding and, of course,
the additional amendment that I had passed in the Energy and Water
Appropriations to finally do a study of Houston's bayous. I am not
going to give up on that.
Now, there is money here on a short-term basis for the Army Corps of
Engineers' community development block grant, the $1 billion for
Federal Highway Administration, but we don't know whether these moneys
will, in fact, be able to solve the problems that we have. So regular
order would have been appropriate.
I know that the Senate asked for $240 million-plus for Flint, a place
where I have traveled to more than one time. I know our good friend
from Michigan, Congressman Kildee, has laid himself on the line for
those people. There is $100 million here. They need $200 million-plus
now--now.
This bill goes until April of 2017; and, frankly, I would argue that
there are emergency instances where we need the full funding, and that
is what is wrong with this CR. It is a compromise to go down even worse
in April. That is my fear. It is a compromise to undermine employees of
the Federal Government in April. Who knows what will be on the horizon.
So this is not the response that we need for the American people.
This is not regular order. This is not full funding. This does not
allow for amendments.
And then let me say this, Mr. Speaker. The last time we provided a
waiver for a general--I think everybody can read their history books,
and they
[[Page H7408]]
know who General George C. Marshall was, in 1950. We have not done that
now for 66 years. Where is the oversight of Congress? As a member of
the Judiciary Committee, to be able to implement a waiver willy-nilly
in the CR--no hearings, no legislation, no understanding.
There is a definitive core in the American psyche and the
constitutional premise of the civilian-military relationship, that
there is a separation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. To be able to defend the Nation, we have the
military. They are excellent. I am sure ``Mad Dog'' Mattis is
excellent. But a waiver? Is this going to be the administration of
waivers?
We have already heard from the top Democrat in the Senate, changing
the rules governing nominations he opposes. We know that, changing the
rules in a CR, we should oppose. This is not regular order or regular
legislation. This is a continuing resolution.
For the American people, let me tell you what is happening. They are
trying to ease under the door a process of eliminating the basic
principle of separating the fact that you are in the military and you
must have a separate period of time before you come into civilian
leadership.
This is a bad process, a bad bill. Let's not fool the American
people. Let's treat them with fairness. This is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to the Rule for
Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028, the ``Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.''
I oppose this rule for four reasons:
This rule does not follow the regular order process for House
consideration of each appropriations bill; allow the full funding of
the federal government for fiscal year 2017; allow for amendments; and
support a long standing prohibition of not legislating on an
appropriations bill.
The rule before the House addresses consideration of the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act, which includes
the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2016, and a Continuing
Resolution to fund the federal government until April 28, 2017.
The WIIN Act, which contains the WRDA Act, authorizes much needed
water projects around the nation that will improve water resources
infrastructure.
On April 17-18, 2016 Houston experienced a historic flood event that
claimed the lives of eight people; damaged over 1,150 households;
disrupted hundreds of businesses; closed community centers, schools,
and places of worship due to flood waters.
I appreciate the support I received from the Transportation
Infrastructure Committee, which authorized projects that directs the
Army Corps of Engineers to conduct studies into the conditions that
lead to flooding.
Although the funding has not been appropriated to conduct studies on
conditions that lead to flooding, as it should have been if Congress
had followed regular order for the appropriations' process, the efforts
to address flooding issues such what was seen in Houston over the last
three years is essential to saving lives and property.
The Jackson Lee Amendment .to H.R. 5055, the Energy and Water
Appropriations Act which will help facilitate the $3 million needed to
fund the Army Corps of Engineers' Houston Regional Watershed Assessment
flood risk management feasibility study.
When funding is appropriated for this type of project the Army Corps
of Engineers will conduct the first water system studies that looks at
all factors that contribute to flooding not only in the City of
Houston, but around the nation.
Should the funding become available a special emphasis of the study
if conducted in Houston would covers 22 primary watersheds within
Harris County's 1,756 square miles, will be placed on extreme flood
events that exceed the system capacity resulting in impacts to asset
conditions/functions and loss of life.
Because of this Jackson Lee Amendment to authorize flood studies, I
know that the WIIN and WRDA bills could have been improved through
amendments; unfortunately, this rule does not allow amendments.
I am a strong proponent of regular order and for the House to take
seriously its responsibility to fund the federal government in a
responsible and prudent manner.
The leadership of the House is using the last days the 114th Congress
will be in session to do appropriations work that should take 8 months
to complete in a regular appropriations process.
If we do not act, and pass this bill--the federal government would be
under threat of shutting down.
The fiscal year of the Federal government for 2016 ended on September
30, and the Fiscal Year for 2017 began on October 1, 2016.
The use of Continuing Resolutions was historically used for the few
bills that did not finish the full legislative process prior to
October 1.
Now Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus Appropriations bills are an
annual part of the House budget and appropriations process--this is
wrong and I will work in the next Congress to make sure that we are
focused on bringing transparency back to the budgetary and
appropriations process by following regular order.
Mr. Speaker, Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028, ``Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016,'' which
extends current Fiscal Year 2017 government funding through April 28,
2017, at its current rate, which includes an across-the-board cut of
.19% for all accounts, defense and non-defense.
The federal government operates under budgetary and authorization
constraints that cannot be met if administrators of agencies are unable
to plan because they do not know what their funding levels will be from
year to year.
This short term Continuing Resolution does the most harm to Fiscal
Year 2017 because we have already passed one CR and now this body is
about to pass another that will end in April.
This creates uncertainty not only for the work of federal agencies,
but for programs that fund local and state programs and projects that
include infrastructure, education, food programs and much more.
This haphazard appropriations process also causes problems and
uncertainty for companies and businesses that provide goods and
services to the federal government.
Further, this rule keeps in place sequestration the most damaging and
fiscally irrespirable thing done by the 114th Congress to the American
people.
Under the conditions that the two bills under this rule have been
managed by the leadership of the House, it would have benefited from
amendments to make improvements to the bill.
Because this bill changes a law that has nothing to do with
appropriations, it would have been beneficial to allow the House to
clearly speak to this single issue through the amendment process, which
would support debate and a clear affirmation for the change in law
governing the appointment of the Secretary of Defense.
Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028 also does something very serious, which
has nothing to do with funding the federal government.
This short term CR has language that changes the number of years a
retired member of the armed services must wait before being considered
for the position of Secretary of Defense.
The bill's critical imperfection has nothing to do with funding the
federal government--it is a change in law that would allow a retired
military person to serve after only 3 years of retirement instead of 7.
The service to our nation and the honor and integrity of the person
under consideration at present to be the next Secretary of Defense is
not in question--it is the reason why there is a waiting period and why
that is important.
By placing this change in a continuing resolution--a bill designed
not to allow more than an hour of debate and not changes is not the
vehicle we should use to make this change.
If President Obama has suggested a change in law to be accomplished
in a continuing resolution appropriations bill his request would have
been denied.
The politicization of the legislative process has seriously
undermined the credibility of the Congress to do the important work of
funding the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we have again been placed in the
position of having to fund the government through the device of a
continuing resolution rather through the normal appropriations process
of considering and voting on the twelve separate spending bills
reported by the Committee on Appropriations.
The use of this appropriations measure to further a political
objective adds further insult to this body and the appropriations
process.
There are oversight committees with the knowledge, expertise and
experience to make the determination on whether this change is prudent
and if they determine that it is--to make the appropriate changes in
law.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in opposition to this
Rule and in support of Congress returning to regular order for the
consideration of authorization and appropriations bills.
[[Page H7409]]
[From CQ Roll Call, Dec. 6, 2016]
New CR Would Ease Confirmation for Mattis
(by John M. Donnelly)
The new stopgap spending bill would clear a path for
lawmakers to exempt President-elect Donald Trump's Defense
secretary nominee from a law requiring a seven-year waiting
period before retired military officers can take that job.
Many Democrats oppose the move and they could make trouble
for the continuing resolution as a result, though it is
unclear if they will risk a government shutdown to make their
point.
The House expects to pass the CR on Thursday and the Senate
on Friday, just in time for President Barack Obama to sign
the bill into law and keep the federal government operating,
as the current CR expires that day.
The new CR, unveiled Tuesday night, contains a provision
that would expedite consideration of legislation that would
enable the Senate to confirm retired Marine Corps Gen. James
Mattis, Trump's now-official pick for Pentagon chief, even
though he retired from military service three years ago.
expedited process
The provision provides that the Senate may consider under
expedited procedures legislation that would give Mattis an
exception to a nearly decade-old law requiring a seven-year
interlude after military service.
The seven-year mandate was itself a shortened version of
the original in-year requirement in the National Security Act
of 1947 (PL 80-253), to which Congress granted an exception
only once, in 1950, in the case of Army Gen. George C.
Marshall.
The legislation to grant the exception can be introduced in
the first 30 days of the next Congress's first session. It
would have to pass both houses, but the CR seeks to knock
down possible dilatory procedures Democrats might use in the
Senate.
The Senate Armed Services Committee would have five days to
report it. If they did not do so, it would go straight to the
floor anyway. Once there, it would still require 60 votes to
pass, unless leaders of both parties agreed to waive that
requirement.
But the CR provision would knock down a number of other
time-consuming procedural hurdles.
The Senate would debate it for 10 hours.
Arizona Republican John McCain, chairman of Senate Armed
Services, had said earlier Tuesday that it is critical to
confirm a new Defense secretary as soon as possible.
``Apparently, Democrats are saying they want to drag it
out,'' he said, referring to the confirmation process. ``You
can't drag out the secretary of Defense. . . . It's
absolutely disgraceful. It puts the nation's security at
risk.''
Democrats have said they will resist an attempt to bobtail
congressional debate over the Mattis nomination and the
larger issue of civilian control of the military, which they
believe deserves scrutiny.
Whether they will oppose the expedited process detailed in
the CR provision remains to be seen.
opposition to rule changes
Asked before the CR provision was unveiled publicly whether
the Mattis provision could doom the whole stopgap, incoming
Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin said: ``I hope it
doesn't come to it . . . There's a strong sentiment opposing
any rules changes in the CR.''
Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on Senate Armed
Services, said in a statement he opposes ``changing the
rules'' governing nominations.
``Trying to jam an historic change like this through on a
year-end spending bill, or changing the rules before a
serious debate can take place, is not the way to conduct the
people's business,'' Reed said. ``Surely, at the very least,
it is worth having bipartisan hearings and debate before
taking any action that could unintentionally disrupt the long
established principle of civilian control of the military.''
New York Democrat Charles E. Schumer, the Senate's incoming
minority leader, told reporters prior to release of the new
spending legislation that the Mattis nomination should not be
``short-shrifted through a CR.''
``There should be a full process, and our caucus feels very
strongly about that,'' Schumer said. ``And changing the rules
in a CR? That's never been done before.''
Along the same lines, in the House, Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi, D-Calif., said earlier in the day that using a CR to
address a forthcoming nomination would set a ``terrible
precedent.''
``The American people are entitled to regular order and
thoughtful scrutiny of nominees and any potential waivers,''
Pelosi said.
Likewise, the top Democrat on House Intelligence,
Californian Adam B. Schiff, said in a statement prior to the
CR's release: ``Members of Congress would benefit from
knowing not only General Mattis' views on civilian control of
the military, but who else from the military the President-
elect intends to nominate for other key positions in his
Cabinet. This ill-considered idea of rushing to judgment and
including the waiver in a must-pass spending bill should be
rejected.''
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from New York that I do
not have any speakers remaining, and I am prepared to close after she
does.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand here
in support of the Water Infrastructure Improvements Act for the Nation,
also known as WIIN, because this legislation is a big win for my home
State of Florida. There are two projects in there that I would like to
talk about: the restoration of our Everglades and actually the
expansion of Port Everglades, which is a different project.
{time} 1000
Our Everglades is the crown jewel of Florida. We also call it the
river of grass. It is the home to an extraordinary natural habitat
which attracts thousands and thousands of visitors every year, but,
more important, it is where we store and clean the water for 7 million
Floridians each year. Within WIIN is CEPP, Central Everglades Planning
Project, which will continue the promise of this Congress to restore
the natural flow of our river of grass that was interrupted years ago
by Federal agencies.
Also in this winning legislation is the expansion of Port Everglades,
one of Florida's premier ports. Last year I was able to travel with our
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to Panama. We witnessed
the opening of the canal, and we have seen the massive ships that are
now traveling the seas, ships that will not be allowed into many of our
ports unless we have an expansion. This bill will allow the expansion
of Port Everglades to go forward.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to let you know that it has taken us 20
years to get this authorized. So when I say this is a big win, this is
a big economic win for south Florida because we expect, with the
expansion 7,000 new jobs, 135,000 indirect new jobs, and $500 million
of economic impact for our State.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support what will be a big win
for our country.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I urge the majority, once again, to get back to regular order and get
to work on long-term appropriations to end this long cycle of political
brinksmanship. These short-term appropriations stifle economic growth
and fail to provide stability to the American people. CBS News has
highlighted that it costs the taxpayers an estimated $24 million a week
just to run the House of Representatives. It is disappointing that this
session of Congress is ending much the same way it began, with
taxpayers failing to get their money's worth.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words my friend from Florida just
had to say about the WRDA bill. Twenty years was her testimony. Twenty
years the folks in south Florida have been waiting for a solution. We
came to that in a bipartisan way, bicameral way. If we support this
rule, we are going to make that the law of the land.
Before I spend a little more time bragging about the content of the
bill, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that these things don't happen by
accident. On the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure alone,
we have got a whole team of folks, again, who have been working for not
days, not weeks, not even months, but years on this final project. Our
staff director on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Matt Sturges, tireless in this effort; the subcommittee staff director,
Geoff Bowman; Collin McCune on the committee, working with every single
member to make sure no balls get dropped, that we don't miss a single
opportunity to make a difference.
You look at all the work that goes on behind the scenes, Mr. Speaker,
and it culminates right here in just this 1 hour of debate. We have
talked about what went on in California. We have talked about what goes
on in Florida; in Texas, years waiting for the Brazos Island Harbor
project, Mr. Speaker, years waiting for the Upper Trinity River
project, the Houston Ship Channel. Thanks to WRDA, all of these
projects are going to happen. Projects in Alaska, New Hampshire, Maine,
Louisiana, North Carolina, Missouri,
[[Page H7410]]
Kansas, Washington all inside this bill, all the result of individual
members working together to make those a reality.
With the passage of this bill, Mr. Speaker, we are going to get back
to a regular order process, exerting our constituents' control over
executive branch agencies as it relates to water projects. We are going
to get back in the habit of doing the annual work of coming together,
looking at what the national infrastructure priorities are of America,
and getting about that business, prioritizing those projects, focusing
on those projects, getting the red tape out of the way, making sure we
are delivering for folks back home.
It has been a long time coming. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to slow
it down any longer. I ask all of my colleagues to support this rule so
that we can consider the underlying bills, and I ask all of my
colleagues to cast an enthusiastic ``yes'' vote for those underlying
bills.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 949 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2403) to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977 to transfer certain funds to the Multiemployer Health
Benefit Plan and the 1974 United Mine Workers of America
Pension Plan. 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 Ways and Means and the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 2403.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). 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 949, if
ordered; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 4919.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 181, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 617]
YEAS--234
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
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
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)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--181
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
[[Page H7411]]
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Evans
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
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)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--18
Ashford
Clawson (FL)
Clyburn
Ellmers (NC)
Fincher
Forbes
Graves (MO)
Kirkpatrick
McCaul
Olson
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price, Tom
Richmond
Sanchez, Loretta
Van Hollen
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
{time} 1031
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Lee was allowed to speak out of order.)
Moment of Silence For Victims of Oakland Warehouse Fire
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with a very heavy heart. Last
weekend, my home city of Oakland, California, suffered a horrific
tragedy. Constituents from Congressman Swalwell's district and
Congressman DeSaulnier's district suffered a tremendous tragedy and
were killed. A devastating fire at an artist collective warehouse in
the Fruitvale neighborhood in Oakland killed 36 young, talented
individuals.
I want to first thank my colleagues, all of you, for your condolences
and offers of assistance.
These were young men and women who had their whole futures ahead of
them. Their lives were tragically cut short. We want to extend our
deepest condolences and prayers to the victims' families and their
loved ones during this anguishing time. We are in mourning for these
young people.
But know that Oakland residents are resilient, compassionate, and
caring. We will continue to support all of our residents during this
very difficult time with any recovery efforts.
I ask the House to observe a moment of silence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCarthy). Without objection, 5-minute
voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 180, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 618]
YEAS--235
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
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
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)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
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
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--180
Adams
Aguilar
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Evans
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
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)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--18
Ashford
Clawson (FL)
Clyburn
Ellmers (NC)
Fincher
Forbes
Graves (MO)
Kirkpatrick
McCaul
Olson
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price, Tom
Richmond
Sanchez, Loretta
Van Hollen
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
{time} 1042
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
[[Page H7412]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________