[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.

                          ____________________