[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 72 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2910-H2919]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1694, FANNIE AND FREDDIE OPEN
RECORDS ACT OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND
THE RULES; AND WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH
RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE
COMMITTEE ON RULES
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 280 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 280
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1694) to require additional entities to be
subject to the requirements of section 552 of title 5, United
States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of
Information Act), and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in
this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill, it
shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 115-14 modified by the amendment printed in
part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read. All points of order against that
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 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.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time through the
legislative day of April 29, 2017, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
Sec. 3. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of April 29, 2017.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
[[Page H2911]]
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), 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
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, I have a confession to make to you. In
fact, I have two confessions to make.
The first is I have got a big group up in the Rules Committee right
now. It is my Gwinnett County Chamber of Commerce. It is an amazing
county, tremendous diversity, tremendous record of success in solving
problems. They have been up there visiting with leaders all day long.
I first met with them this morning while Mr. McGovern was down here
on the floor during 5 minutes. I said: Well, this is a 5-minute time.
You can step right through the doors there, if you would like to see
it.
They said: Who is on the floor?
I said: Well, it is this fellow right here. His name tag is there in
the Rules Committee. He is down there, #endhunger.
I said: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and I can
disagree on all sorts of issues, all sorts of public policy, but there
is nobody in this institution who has a heart for service on the issue
of hunger more than Jim McGovern does.
I said: Here he is. He is representing Massachusetts, of all places,
and he has chosen to serve on the Agriculture Committee. If you are a
Georgian, you serve on the Agriculture Committee because you grow
cotton and peanuts and row crop after row crop after row crop. When you
are from Massachusetts and you sit on the Agriculture Committee, you
want to end childhood hunger, you want to feed people.
I tell you that as a confession, Mr. Speaker, because I am not going
to confess to sharing my admiration for Jim McGovern all that often on
the House floor, but I was with folks up there today who really do
commit themselves to making a difference in our county. It was nice to
have a colleague on the floor--again, with whom I disagree about much--
who was putting everything he had, as he does every day, into an issue
that he cares a lot about.
That is all my constituents back home want, Mr. Speaker, is to
believe that we have sincere, earnest folks working on sincere and
difficult issues. So I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) for that.
My second confession, Mr. Speaker, is that ordinarily I really enjoy
listening to the Reading Clerk read the rule. It gets me all wound up
about how the process is. Of course, today she was talking about all
the amendments we are going to make in order. We are making every
single amendment offered by both sides of the aisle in order on this
underlying bill.
I found myself thinking back to the days when I was a young man and I
came up here with my class. I was sitting up here in the gallery, and I
walked into the floor at a time when the Reading Clerk was just
standing up there reading. There was no cheat sheet that they give you
in the gallery, Mr. Speaker. You don't have any idea whether they are
going to read for 20 seconds or 20 minutes. For all you know, they are
going to read for the rest of the afternoon, and it was hard to follow.
I get a cheat sheet here that my staff gives me before each rule. I
didn't enjoy it as much today as I ordinarily do, Mr. Speaker, because
there is a lot of procedural work in this rule.
We are coming up on a bunch of big deadlines. So there is the ability
to bring up suspensions. These are commonsense bills that two-thirds of
the House agree on. You can bring those up at any time. That provision
is made in this rule.
There is the ability to bring things up the same day. If the Rules
Committee goes up and passes a new rule, we can bring that bill to the
floor immediately. Ordinarily that would lay over for 24 hours. But
because there are so many things we are trying to get done, we waived
that.
All of those procedural issues, Mr. Speaker, get in the way of my
favorite part of the rule, which is that every single Member of this
body had a chance to come up to the Rules Committee, offer their ideas
for how we can make this bill better, and the Rules Committee made
every single one of them in order. Let me tell you more about that.
This House Resolution 280, Mr. Speaker, is the structured rule for
the consideration of H.R. 1694. If you happen to tune into our Rules
Committee web feed, Mr. Speaker, you can see it at rules.house.gov if
you are not able to get up there with us as we meet sometimes late at
night.
This House Resolution 280 is for the consideration of H.R. 1694, the
Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017. Now, folks know a lot
about open records, Mr. Speaker. It is that procedure--it is called
FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act--where any member of the United
States community board of directors--that would be any United States
citizen--can write and say: this is my government, and I want some
information about what is going on. That has been a very fundamental
part of who we are as a people for as long as you and I have been
alive.
What is unusual, though, is the way the Federal Government has gotten
involved in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of about $187
billion--billion with a B, Mr. Speaker. The American taxpayer bailed
out these two private institutions making the American taxpayer, making
the U.S. Government the largest shareholder in both of these
institutions.
So we found ourselves in a unique situation of having the American
taxpayers in charge of an institution with no ability, through the
Freedom of Information Act, to request information from that entity. It
just hadn't come up that often. Thank goodness we haven't had to bail
out folks that way in the past.
Mr. Speaker, these entities that Fannie and Freddie are a part--we
called them government-sponsored enterprises--they just haven't
historically been the subject of that kind of taxpayer scrutiny, but
times are changing.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, went through the regular order process.
Hearings were held. Markups were held. It came out of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform. If you have not looked into government
reform, Mr. Speaker, it is not often that the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform is moving unanimous legislation.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is a tough committee
to serve on. I served there in my first term here, Mr. Speaker. It is
the hardest things about our government, how we hold each other
accountable. Of course, where you stand sometimes depends on where you
sit here. If you sit on the left or you sit on the right, you might
feel differently about government reform and accountability.
This bill passed out of this committee on a voice vote, Mr. Speaker.
The most collaborative of efforts moved this bill to the floor.
Then when we got it in the Rules Committee, we had several Members
say: I think we can make this bill better. I think we can make this
bill even better.
These were Members who may not have had a chance to fix those issues
on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Again, as I said, we made all amendments in order from both sides of
the aisle. I believe that totals three today, Mr. Speaker. But the
take-home message for me is, if you had an idea about how to fix this
bill, the folks in the Rules Committee made that opportunity available
to you.
Mr. Speaker, we can't do the big things every single day of the week.
Every piece of legislation we pass, unless we stuff everything into it,
can't do everything for everyone. Candidly, I am opposed to stuffing
everything into a piece of legislation. I am glad when we have an
opportunity to move one issue, one subject, one topic at a time and
deliver on behalf of the American people.
{time} 1245
Mr. Speaker, this structured rule, House Resolution 280, is a good
bill. It
[[Page H2912]]
is a good resolution that, if passed, will provide for the
consideration of the underlying legislation, H.R. 1694, which, if
passed, will provide the American taxpayer, for the first time, the
accountability that they deserve for the $187 billion in taxpayer
support that Fannie and Freddie have received. I am proud to be
associated with that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my friend, for
the customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I first want to begin by thanking the
gentleman for his kind words to his constituents about me on the floor.
It means a lot to me, and I appreciate it.
I should tell him, however, that, even though sometimes people don't
realize this, Massachusetts has a robust agricultural base, and, in
fact, in my district, I have 1,832 farms on over 142,899 acres,
compared to the gentleman who has 209 farms on 13,328 acres. So, in
addition to fighting hunger, I am on the Agriculture Committee to
represent my farms.
I do genuinely appreciate the gentleman's kind words, but then I look
at the rule that we are debating today and it kind of spoils the mood.
Having said that, I just want to say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker,
that here we are again, just 1 day from our government running out of
funding and confronting yet another manufactured, totally avoidable
crisis, and instead of working on a bill to fully fund America's
biggest priorities, we are back on the floor with--the only way I can
characterize this--more filler legislation. It seems my Republican
friends care more about looking busy than actually doing their jobs.
This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 1694, as my
colleague mentioned, the Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017.
It is a fine bill designed to strengthen transparency at Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. I support the legislation. My Democratic colleagues
support the legislation. The Republican majority supports the
legislation. In fact, I haven't found one person yet who doesn't
support the bill.
Freedom of information is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, and I support
FOIA, but what about the freedom from the threat of a government
shutdown?
What about freedom from the threat of a default on our national debt?
What about freedom to know what our President's conflicts of interest
are and to see his tax returns?
What about the freedom from having our healthcare protections ripped
away, protections like essential health benefits and protections for
people with preexisting conditions?
And what about the freedom to know what Congressional Republicans and
the White House are doing to our healthcare system behind closed doors?
None of this seems to matter.
But the most troubling part of this rule is that it declares blanket
martial law, through Saturday, that allows Republicans to bring
anything--and I mean anything--to the floor between now and then.
Now, I understand the importance of rushing something to the floor
when the government is about to run out of money; although, I would
point out that we are 7 months into the fiscal year and my Republican
friends set this deadline themselves back in December, so there is
absolutely no excuse for Congress to come within hours of yet another
shutdown. But this is just the latest example of Republican
obstruction, obfuscation, and incompetence that has, once again,
brought us to the edge of the cliff. And, Mr. Speaker, this is no way
to govern.
This rule would allow Republican leadership to rush anything to the
floor within hours of it being released. Not just appropriations, it
gives them blanket authority to jam us with whatever new disaster they
cook up with the White House in the backroom of Capitol Hill, and that
includes this latest healthcare deal that I have heard so much about
this week.
Of course, with it being a backroom deal, we were relying on news
reports all week to clue us in to these terrible new provisions; and it
was only last night, around midnight, when the Republicans finally
posted their newest healthcare proposal that we were able to confirm
just how bad it really is.
Incredibly, this new amendment will make the bill even worse than
before. Honest to God, Mr. Speaker, I didn't know that was possible.
In addition to killing the requirement to provide basic, crucial,
essential benefits like maternity care and prescription drugs and
emergency services, this new amendment will also completely gut
protections for people with preexisting conditions. In fact, this
amendment directly violates the commitment made by President Trump and
House Republicans to protect those with preexisting conditions.
This newest proposal will allow insurers to charge an unlimited ``age
tax'' to older Americans, and, to make matters even worse, Republicans
have set up a system that would allow women to once again be charged
more than men for health coverage. It will bring us back to those bad
old days when insurance companies could charge women more because they
said being a woman was a preexisting condition.
Give me a break.
All of this, on top of a disaster of a healthcare bill that will
cause 24 million Americans to lose their healthcare coverage. And in
addition, their bill would cut Medicaid by close to $1 trillion, and
take that $1 trillion and give it, in the form of tax breaks, to the
wealthiest individuals in the country.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the way we should be running this House. All
of this is being done to appease the most conservative fringes within
the Republican Conference in an attempt to deliver, I guess, a
political ``win'' to Donald Trump so he can celebrate 100 days
in office. It doesn't matter what the details are, he just wants to be
able to tout a victory of some sort.
Well, this is not a victory for the American people. This would be a
disaster for the American people.
It is no wonder that my Republican colleagues have been overwhelmed
by angry calls from their constituents at home demanding that they
oppose this reckless and heartless bill. As one Republican remarked:
``I spent the whole work period hearing from people pissed about
preexisting conditions. This isn't helpful.'' That is one of my
Republican colleagues.
Now, under this rule, these dangerous backroom deals could be rushed
to the floor without any proper deliberations, but they will have a
very real, very serious, and very dangerous consequence for millions of
Americans. Real lives are at stake here.
Now, I can't help but also note that this newest amendment exempts
Congress from the terrible impacts of this proposal. Can you believe
that? Knowing just how damaging these new provisions are, Republicans
wanted to keep healthcare protections for themselves but set up another
system for their constituents.
Now, it was only after the press caught Republicans with their hands
in the cookie jar that they introduced yet another bill to unexempt
themselves. But the new bill to unexempt Congress would require a 60-
vote supermajority in the Senate. What are the odds that is going to
happen, Mr. Speaker?
Are we seriously supposed to trust that they won't exempt themselves
from this terrible plan, to trust that the Senate can muster 60 votes
to pass this provision or anything else?
Let me be clear: this maneuver is a procedural sleight of hand. This
is legislative smoke and mirrors designed to give Republicans, who
tried to pull a fast one and got caught, a talking point.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans wrote this bill, so change the damn bill.
Don't just say: ``Trust us. We will pass another bill to fix the fix,
and we will get the Senate not to make any changes. Oh, while we are at
it, we will get a supermajority in the Senate to support it.'' Who do
you think you are fooling, Mr. Speaker?
I urge all my colleagues to defeat this martial law rule, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would tell my friend that I think this is exactly the right way to
be moving legislation, and I am proud that we are doing it. Big bills
are hard and big
[[Page H2913]]
bills are sloppy. Can we do better on big bills? Of course we can. Of
course we can.
But you and I have been on the Rules Committee together, Mr. Speaker.
The Rules Committee process, you have seen it happen. If I am down here
talking about a small bill that everybody agrees on, folks want to know
why it is we are not doing something bigger. And when I bring a big
bill down here tomorrow, folks are going to want to know why I have
rushed it to the floor and we are not doing something that has more
bipartisan agreement on it instead.
These issues are hard, and that is why they have sent serious men and
women here to try to solve them. I want to do everything that my friend
from Massachusetts has talked about, Mr. Speaker. I want to see a
healthcare bill go across the floor. I want to see a full-year funding
bill go across the floor. Shoot, I don't stop there. I want to see the
budget go across the floor. I want to see a transportation and
infrastructure bill go across the floor. I have got a tax bill I want
to see go across the floor. The list is long.
And while my friend from Massachusetts and I are down here working on
this, I have got 433 other colleagues out there working on that, and my
great hope is that we are going to deliver on those things in the very
near future, too.
But today, Mr. Speaker, today isn't a day for recriminations. Today
is a day for celebrations, in that what we have here is a bill that we
have worked through the regular order process.
You are not going to hear one person, Mr. Speaker, not one, come down
to the floor and say this bill wasn't moved through the process in the
right way. You are not going to hear one person come down to the floor
and say their voice was silenced on this bill. You are not going to
hear one person come down to the floor and say their input was turned
away on this bill.
We do so much that we wish we could do better, Mr. Speaker. When we
have these opportunities to celebrate those things we are doing right,
I sometimes wish we would take a little more time to focus on our
successes. There will always be time to turn our attention back to our
failures.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleague, I don't have any
problem with the underlying bill, but I would argue with him that I
think most of our colleagues probably don't know what the hell we are
doing here because, in the scheme of things, this is not terribly
consequential. I think our problem is the fact that we are at the edge
of another crisis where, if we don't fund the government by tomorrow,
we shut this place down, we shut the government down, and that has an
impact on the American people.
I think what our objection is is that the rule that you bring to us
here today to consider the underlying bill also allows my Republican
friends to bring up anything they want between now and Saturday,
including, you know, an awful healthcare repeal bill.
And by the way, when we talk about regular order, it would be nice,
especially when it comes to the big things like health care, that we
actually do things like hearings and listen to what experts have to say
and our constituents and patients and doctors, I mean, a whole bunch of
people who have a stake in our healthcare system.
The bill that my friends brought to the floor, that they had to pull,
never had a single hearing and, in all likelihood, whatever monstrosity
they bring to the floor in the future will probably not be the result
of regular order. It will be the result of a backroom deal where very
few people have any input.
So I can't celebrate today. I am very concerned for my constituents.
I am very concerned for the millions of people who might lose their
health care. I am concerned for this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump's first 100 days have been embroiled in
controversy and shrouded in secrecy. The American people deserve a heck
of a lot better. They deserve transparency from their government. They
deserve to know which special interests are getting face time with the
President and his top aides and whether the White House is being used
to personally enrich President Trump and his family.
It is our duty, as the people's Representatives, to hold this
administration accountable, an administration that has so many
conflicts of interest, financial conflicts of interest, that it is on a
collision course with corruption. So, if we defeat the previous
question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up
Representative Katherine Clark's resolution, H. Res. 286, which would
force the White House to release information to us regarding the
President's many potential conflicts of interest, including his tax
returns, involvement in his business empire, and White House and Mar-a-
Lago visitor logs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
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
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Katherine Clark) to discuss our
proposal.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague
from Massachusetts. I am glad to share in this bipartisan moment of
admiration for his work with my colleague from Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question so that we can bring a resolution to the floor. This
resolution will ensure that the House meets its constitutional
responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch by
investigating potential conflicts of interest of President Donald J.
Trump.
{time} 1300
It reads: ``Whereas, on October 18, 2016, then-candidate Donald J.
Trump communicated via Twitter: `I will Make Our Government Honest
Again--believe me. But first, I'm going to have to #draintheswamp in
DC';
``Whereas, President Trump subsequently nominated a team of wealthy
and connected insiders to lead his Cabinet, many of whom have been
forced to withdraw from consideration because of irrevocable conflicts
of interest;
``Whereas, as President-elect, President Trump announced that he
would be `leaving his great business' to his adult children, a move he
felt would be `visually important';
``Whereas, President Trump has taken no steps to untangle his
financial interest in his business holdings, to limit his ability to
advise the nominal managers of The Trump Organization, or to prevent
other interests from currying favor with the White House by doing
business with companies that might benefit the President's bottom line;
``Whereas, President Trump has reversed White House policy and now
refuses to release visitor logs to the public;
``Whereas, on May 30, 2014, President Trump stated: `If I decide to
run for office, I will produce my tax returns, absolutely';
``Whereas, on January 24, 2016, President Trump stated that he would
release his `very big returns . . . in the next period of time';
``Whereas, on February 25, 2016, President Trump changed his position
and stated that, although he could not release his tax returns while
under audit, he would do so `as soon as the audit is done';
``Whereas, on May 11, 2016, President Trump communicated via Twitter:
`In interview I told @AP that my taxes are under routine audit and I
would release my tax returns when the audit is complete, not after
election!';
``Whereas, on January 22, 2017, White House senior adviser Kellyanne
Conway stated that `the White House response is that he's not going to
release his returns';
``Whereas, President Trump has directed the Congress to act on
comprehensive reform of the Internal Revenue Code;
``Whereas, without the President's tax returns, the public cannot
know
[[Page H2914]]
how the full extent to which any proposed reforms will personally
benefit the President;
``Whereas, on January 11, 2017, President Trump insisted that he has
`no dealings with Russia';
``Whereas, it has been widely reported that President Trump sought
and received funding from Russian investors, especially when American
banks stopped lending to him after his multiple bankruptcies;
``Whereas, Donald Trump, Jr., who runs day-to-day business operations
for his father's companies, has stated: `Russians make up a pretty
disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of
money pouring in from Russia';
``Whereas, on March 20, 2017, James B. Comey, Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, confirmed the existence of a Federal
investigation into multiple connections between the Trump campaign and
the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin;
``Whereas, it has been reported that President Trump has personally
guaranteed over $300 million in loans to German financial institution
Deutsche Bank AG;
``Whereas, the Trump administration is now responsible for overseeing
multiple investigations into the trading and lending practices of
Deutsche Bank AG and for negotiating a potentially multibillion-dollar
settlement with the bank related to its trading of mortgage-backed
securities;
``Whereas, these matters represent only a few of the many instances
in which President Trump has broken his promise to `drain the swamp';
``Whereas, under the Constitution of the United States, the United
States Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight of the
executive branch of government;
``Whereas, the majority of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform of the House of Representatives rejected an amendment to have
the committee's oversight plan that would have tasked the committee
with investigating the President's conflicts of interest;
``Whereas, members of the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Foreign
Affairs, the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Ways and Means of the
House of Representatives have each advanced resolutions of inquiry
designed to obtain information about the President's ongoing conflicts
of interest;
``Whereas, the majority has blocked each of those resolutions from
consideration on the House floor;
``Whereas, the continuing refusal of the majority to conduct even
basic oversight of the Trump administration diminishes the status of
the Congress as a coequal branch of government;
``Whereas, this continued neglect undermines the credibility of the
House of Representatives and raises a question of the privileges of the
House;
``Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives
directs the following persons to take the following actions:
``(1) President Trump is directed to transmit to the House of
Representatives copies of any document, record, memorandum,
correspondence, or other communication in possession of the Executive
Office of the President, or any portion of such communication, that
refers or relates to President Trump's proposal to maintain an interest
in his business holdings, while turning over day-to-day operation of
those interests to his sons Donald J. Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump.
``(2) In support of transparency in government and the longstanding
tradition of the disclosure of tax returns of Presidents and
Presidential candidates, the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to
provide the Committee on Ways and Means with the tax return information
of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2007 through 2016 for review in closed
executive session by the committee as provided under section 6103 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and directs the committee to hold a
vote on reporting such information to the full House of
Representatives.
``(3) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics is directed to
publish any waiver or exception granted to any officer or employee of
the government to the January 28, 2017, executive order entitled
`Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees'.
``(4) The Administrator of General Services is directed to provide
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives with any legal analysis supporting its March 23, 2017,
conclusion that Trump International Hotel in Washington may maintain
its lease with the Federal Government, despite an express prohibition
on elected officials taking part in the lease.
``(5) President Trump is directed to provide visitor logs for both
the White House and Mar-a-Lago to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform of the House of Representatives on a rolling and
ongoing basis, and directs the committee to hold ongoing votes on
reporting the contents of such visitor logs to the full House of
Representatives.''
Mr. Speaker, I filed this resolution because it appears to me and the
American public that Mr. Trump has drained the swamp and funneled it
into the Oval Office.
Trump's billionaire, special interest friends are now in charge of
policies that impact every American, every family, and every child.
Everything from education to health care to taxes are in the hands of
people who have never sent their kids to public schools, who have never
had to take out a loan to pay for college, and who have never had a
medical bill they couldn't afford--and all of this is in the hands of a
President who refuses to release his tax returns.
While Trump fights to keep Americans in the dark about which of his
other friends he owes special favors to--whether it is Big Oil, foreign
banks, lobbyists at Mar-a-Lago, or the Russians--Republicans seem to be
happy to look the other way.
Transparency and accountability are not partisan ideas. Families at
home deserve a Congress that works together to be the necessary check
that our Constitution provides over this unaccountable administration.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle
that they had me at hello. When they said this was a great bill
underlying this resolution and they didn't see any controversy, they
thought we ought to pass this and they thought this was a good step
forward for the American people, yet you had me. I would like to do
that.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine, his name was Jay Pierson.
He served in this institution for over four decades. His job was not to
be particularly partisan one way or the other. His job was to make sure
this place functioned. I wonder what goes on over the 40 years of
changes in the way that we treat each other on the House floor and the
way that we work with each other on the House floor.
My friends have a perfectly legitimate concern. In fact, they brought
it up as a privileged resolution already this year. It has been tabled.
I recognize that my friends and I have disagreements--vast
disagreements--in numerous areas of public policy, but today we have a
chance to talk about one of the agreements that we have. I wonder, Mr.
Speaker, what folks back home watching think. Do they think, just like
the media loves to report, that, golly, those guys can't even agree on
what time to start in the morning?
For Pete's sake, we have worked a bill through the process, just like
we learned about in civics class. Don't make me sing ``I'm just a bill,
and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill,'' Mr. Speaker, because that is
exactly the process that we all want bills to go through, and we have
done that here today.
We can't even take a moment to talk about how successfully we have
worked together, not even a moment to talk about how the process
worked, not even a moment to talk about how we delivered for folks. We
have to shift gears to something that is not even the topic of the bill
today. We will have time to talk about every controversy we want. If
folks want to go fisticuffs with one another, I am certain we will make
time for that, but right now we have a chance to talk about those
things that unite us.
In the spirit of dispelling those myths, Mr. Speaker, dispelling
those
[[Page H2915]]
myths that things don't get done around here, dispelling those myths
that we don't respect each other, and dispelling those myths that we
can't work together, I want to dispel the myth that what this
underlying rule does is it provides Republicans with a pathway for
doing whatever it is they want to do whenever it is they want to do it,
because that doesn't really sound like fair play. I wouldn't want to
support such a bill either.
What this rule does do is, contrary to the rules, allow us to bring
up suspension bills at any time. Now, what a suspension bill is, Mr.
Speaker, as you know, it is a bill that can pass not with a simple
majority, but with a two-thirds majority. So this rule says, forbid the
thought, should bipartisanship break out in the next 72 hours, you all
should be able to bring those bills to the floor and deliver it for the
American people.
Well, dag gum it, I support that. I don't look at that as a way of
Republicans to manipulate the system. I look at it as a way for the
United States Congress to deliver on behalf of the system, and I am
glad we are doing it.
Number two, the bill says, if the Rules Committee, in its wisdom,
passes a rule to bring a bill to the floor rather than have that bill
lay over for a night, you can bring that bill to the floor directly. So
my friend is absolutely right when he says that passing this rule would
allow us to rush legislation to the floor. It would rush that
commonsense, bipartisan legislation that two-thirds of us would agree
on, we can rush those results across the finish line for the American
people; and, if the Rules Committee acts and we pass that rule on the
floor of the House, it will allow us to consider the legislation that
that rule would bring to the floor on the same day instead of waiting
24 hours.
Now, what my friend says about having an opportunity to read the
bills is critically important--critically important. I want to point
out because, again, folks have so many concerns about what goes on in
this institution, I got lots of things I can gripe about, but when we
are getting it right, I want to make sure that we are telling folks
that we are getting it right.
This tradition of self-flagellation in this institution drives me
crazy because, when we tear ourselves down, Mr. Speaker, it is not us
who bears the cost of that. It is our constituents. It is the board of
directors of the United States of America. It is the folks who come
beyond us.
We have a responsibility to lead this institution, and when we are
doing it right, we ought to tell the American people that we are doing
it right. For example, there might be a healthcare vote that comes to
the floor of this House in the next 24, 48 hours. I don't want to get
my expectations high for that, Mr. Speaker, but I sure would be
enthusiastic if that happened. If that were to happen, my friend is
exactly right: we will go to the Rules Committee; we will pass a rule;
we will bring it to the floor; and we will bring it up the same day.
But the language was posted yesterday, and the vote wouldn't happen
until tomorrow. So when folks say let's leave the language out there
for folks to have a chance to read it, let's not rush something
through, we have got 3 days built into the system.
{time} 1315
That is not a rule of the House. I want to make that clear. There is
no rule in this institution that says you have got to present a bill
before you can pass a bill to read it and find out what is in it. This
is not a rule of this House. It is a policy of ours. It is a policy of
who we are and of let's do this; let's make this our commitment to make
this happen. Mr. Speaker, it does not always happen, but most of the
time it does. I celebrate that success.
Again, thinking about those things that unite us instead of divide
us, I just listened to my friend, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, make an
incredibly eloquent plea for her bill. She said, if we defeat the
previous question--that vote is coming up very soon--we will take up
her piece of legislation, which was just handed to me about 3\1/2\
minutes ago.
Mr. Speaker, I get it that sometimes people think that they have such
urgent ideas that those ideas need to come to the floor in a hurry. I
will settle for either outcome: that it is okay that we bring ideas to
the floor in a hurry and that it is okay if you hand somebody a bill
3\1/2\ minutes ago and tell them you want to bring it to the floor 30
minutes from now. If that is okay, then let that be okay. If what we
need is for bills to lay overnight, then let that be okay.
We have a process here that is built on mutual respect, that is built
on years of tradition that men and women paid a tremendous price for,
that they provided tremendous leadership for. In the name of short-term
political gains, I want to make sure that we don't tear down those
long-term policy successes.
This institution should be a source of pride for the American people.
I don't believe that it is today. The responsibility of making it that
source of pride falls on you and me. We are the only ones who can get
that job done. We have an opportunity today to do just a little bit of
that, and I hope we take advantage of that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say to the gentleman from Georgia: he had me at hello, too. If
all he said was ``hello'' and introduced the underlying bill, we would
be done. There would be no controversy. The underlying bill is being
brought to the floor under a rule that is atrocious and that, quite
frankly, every Member of this House should be ashamed about. Under this
martial law rule, you can bring anything up at any time you want, at a
moment's notice, without people having an opportunity to actually
understand what they are going to vote on.
The gentleman talked about they might bring up the healthcare bill
between now and Saturday. He said: Yesterday, we posted the text of our
new amendment. He used the word ``yesterday'' loosely. They posted it
at midnight last night. I was asleep at midnight; I don't know about
the gentleman.
The bottom line is, there is nothing that says that they can't change
the text again and again and again and again, offer more amendments,
because that is what they have been doing since they first began their
effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
On something as important as health care, on something that could
affect millions and millions of people in this country, that could
throw 24 million people off of health care, that will cut Medicaid by a
trillion dollars, that will compromise Medicare, that will take away
essential benefits, people ought to know what the heck they are voting
on.
We ought to have regular order on these major pieces of legislation.
Why is that so controversial? How about a hearing on health care? The
idea that we would like the opportunity to know what we are voting on,
to do this in a thoughtful way, is so offensive to my Republican
colleagues. I am flabbergasted by this--to basically defend this
process.
We have to use a procedural motion to be able to try to force a
debate or bring to the floor the bill of my colleague, Katherine Clark,
which basically calls on the President to release his tax returns and
calls for some transparency with regard to visitor logs at the White
House and Mar-a-Lago. We have to resort to a procedural motion because
the Republican majority basically blocks us from bringing anything to
the floor under a normal process.
The Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die.
Yet the bill that we have before us, the underlying bill that we are
going to consider later today, could probably pass on a suspension.
By the way, we have no problem with giving you same-day authority on
suspension bills. Those aren't controversial. We don't even have a
problem, although you should have prepared for this, with you being
able to bring a bill to the floor quickly to keep the government
running.
It is the broad authority that you have given yourselves to bring
anything at a moment's notice, without anybody having a chance to
review it. That is what we have a problem with. Quite frankly, my
Republican colleagues ought to have a problem with that, too.
Mr. Speaker, shortly after taking the gavel, Speaker Ryan said: ``I
want to
[[Page H2916]]
have a process that is more open, more inclusive, more deliberative,
more participatory, and that is what we are trying to do.'' That was
the Speaker of the House.
Unfortunately, Republicans do not appear to be trying very hard. The
current Congress is on track to become the most closed in history, with
an incredible 26 closed rules in this year's first quarter out of 42
total rules. The Republican majority shut out all amendments from both
Democrats and Republicans on fully 62 percent of the legislation
considered by the House under a rule.
Do Members realize that? On most bills, even they are not allowed to
offer amendments. No amendments at all. Under a closed rule, you can't
even offer an amendment to fix a typo.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to take a look at this
chart. This shows closed rules in the past decade and for the first
quarter of the year.
Do you see this really long red line on the top? I am happy to bring
it over to my colleagues here. If you see that line, you will see that
the bottom line is that this shows that this Congress has an abysmal
record with regard to an open, fair process.
When we were in charge from 2007-2010, we averaged only 8 closed
rules in the same timeframe. This Congress is more than three times as
closed. We have 26 closed rules in the first quarter alone; that is not
to mention zero open rules. You are even crushing your record for 2015,
the year that you beat the all-time closed rule record. This is not
something to be proud of.
What has this historically closed process brought to the House?
Complete chaos. Virtually no legislative accomplishments. A lousy
process usually leads to lousy legislation. We learned that from your
awful, disastrous attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care
Act.
By the way, I should point out that while we were meeting here
today--I guess some of the advocacy organizations had a chance to read
the language you posted last night at midnight--so far, the American
Hospital Association, AARP, the American Medical Association, March of
Dimes, and America's Essential Hospitals have all come out against this
terrible, new Republican health proposal. In fact, the American
Hospital Association said: ``The amendment proposed this week would
dramatically worsen the bill.''
I would just say to my colleagues: We don't have a problem with
suspensions. We don't have a problem with a rule that will allow us to
keep the government running. We have a problem with your closed,
authoritarian approach to the legislation. We have a problem with the
prospect that you might bring a healthcare bill to the floor that will
impact millions and millions of Americans, and nobody will have read
it, nobody will even have any guarantee that what you posted last night
at midnight will even be what we are voting on.
This is a big deal. It affects my constituents and it affects your
constituents. We ought to be doing a better job around here, and this
process, quite frankly, stinks.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia). Members are
reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Simply, again, I reiterate that everybody in this House, Democrats
and Republicans alike, should be ashamed at the way this House is being
run. The American people who are watching should be appalled by the way
this House is being run.
I don't care whether you are a liberal or conservative or fall
somewhere in the middle. You ought to have some confidence that what
the people's House is doing is actually thoughtful and is actually in
the best interest of the people of this country. That is not what is
happening here.
Yes, the underlying bill that we are going to talk about later today,
we have no problem with it. It could have passed overwhelmingly under a
suspension vote. I am happy to support it. No problem.
I have no problem, by the way, with bringing up suspensions to fill
up time as we try to get a resolution to the continuing resolution. We
have no problem, quite frankly, with bringing up a continuing
resolution in a quick fashion.
This rule continues a lousy process that has been embraced by the
current Republican leadership in this House. There is no excuse for
this. When it comes to big bills, big legislation, like health care,
which is a very personal thing to people in this country, the American
people deserve much better than this.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on
this lousy rule and stand up to your leadership and demand that they
open this House up not only to Democratic amendments but to Republican
amendments as well. This is a deliberative body. We ought to be able to
deliberate.
On big issues like health care, it ought not be some backroom deal
that a few people put together. We saw the result of those backroom
deals with a lousy, terrible, awful bill that would hurt millions of
Americans. We ought to do it out in the open.
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 heard a group of constituents ask one of our freshman
Members what they found to be the most surprising part of this
institution, having served here for about 100 days, and it was with no
small amount of joy that they gave exactly the same answer that I would
have given after my first 100 days. They said to their constituents:
What really surprised me is how earnest, hardworking, conscientious,
dedicated, and how committed each and every Member of this institution
is.
There are a couple of bad apples that don't follow under that
perspective, but, by and large, the surprise when you get elected to
Congress is about the high quality of the people who you get to work
with, the commitment of the people you get to work with, the conviction
of the people who you get to work with.
What you have heard from my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker, I
will tell you, is 100 percent authentic. There is no one down here
playing for the cameras today. I could make a powerful case that while
cameras provide a great deal of sunlight, they create a great deal of
unnecessary heat, as well. Folks sometimes are performing for cameras
in this institution, but not my friend from Massachusetts.
What you heard from my friend from Massachusetts was absolutely
sincere concern about public policy. I agree with him. I believe we
should have an open and deliberative process in this institution.
You and I and my friend from Massachusetts don't work for the
leadership. The leadership works for us. There is not one Member of the
leadership team who votes for me. I vote for them.
We have an opportunity to direct the way this institution is led.
Candidly, I couldn't be more proud than I am of the way that Paul Ryan
leads this institution. He is not the Republican Speaker. We have a
Republican leader. The Democrats have a Democratic leader. Paul Ryan is
the Speaker of the House. I am incredibly proud of the way he leads
this institution.
The way to make it even better, Mr. Speaker, is not to cite every
single thing that we do as a failure. It is just not so. Let's find
those things that we do that we can do better, and let's identify them
and work together, but let's celebrate those successes.
For example, my friend pointed to the number of closed rules that
have come to the floor. For folks who don't follow the process closely,
a closed rule means there were no amendments allowed.
Well, many of those bills, Mr. Speaker, were bills that the Rules
Committee sent out an email to all of Capitol Hill and said: We are
bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. Here it is for you to
read it and digest it. And if you have any ideas about how to make this
bill better, you send them to us, and we will take a look.
[[Page H2917]]
When we did that, Mr. Speaker, not one single idea came back from the
Republican or the Democratic side of the aisle for improving the bill.
{time} 1330
So, yes, the bill came to the floor. The rule was closed not because
we are trying to silence the minority, not because we are trying to
silence elements of the majority, but because we had a completely open
process, and it turned out that regular order got it right the first
time. We don't need to identify that as a failure. That is an
unmitigated success.
Some of those closed rules, Mr. Speaker, came because we were
bringing legislation under the Congressional Review Act. Now, for folks
who don't know the Congressional Review Act, that is that act that was
passed so that Congress could go back and review regulations that had
been passed by the administration to make sure those regulations
followed congressional intent.
By definition, those bills have to be narrow and targeted. We can't
have an amendment about healthcare legislation added to our waters of
the U.S. Congressional Review Act bill. We can't have folks go and add
a pay raise for our military men and women to that Congressional Review
Act bill. We want a pay raise for our men and women in uniform. We
passed it out of the House. It is sitting in the United States Senate,
but it can't be on a CRA piece of legislation. So, yes, every single
one of those bills came to the floor under a closed rule not because
someone was trying to silence the minority, not because someone wanted
to silence elements of the majority, but because that is the process
that we have to work through together, and, by golly, we are doing it
right.
My friend from Massachusetts talked about what has gone on in this
body. I will tell you, this body has moved more legislation to the
President's desk for his signature in these first 100 days than any
President since Truman. We have had Republicans running the show, we
have had Democrats running the show, but it is only when we
collaboratively have been running the show that we have moved more
bills to the President's desk than any other Congress in modern
American history. I am proud of that. Some of those votes went my way,
some of those votes didn't go my way, but we worked each one of those
through the process, and we did each one of those things together.
Mr. Speaker, I would love to tell you what is going to happen over
the next 18 months. I have no idea. But I know that to the extent that
this body is full of accusations, to the extent that this body is full
of mistrust, to the extent that this body is full of frustration and
condemnation, we are going to go down one path.
To the extent that this body isn't afraid to tell folks back home
when we are working hard together, to the extent that this body isn't
ashamed that we rolled up our sleeves together and got some things done
that folks thought we wouldn't be able to get done, to the extent that
this body isn't afraid to confront the fact that we are always going to
have disagreements, but from time to time bipartisanship breaks out and
bills move a little more quickly than they do at other times. If folks
are willing to accept our successes with the same zeal that they
celebrate our failures, Mr. Speaker, I tell you, we are going to create
a different institution over these next 18 months. Again, not under
Democratic leadership, not under Republican leadership, but under Paul
Ryan's leadership as Speaker of this entire House of Representatives.
We have one such opportunity today. I encourage folks to go to the
web page of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I believe
it is oversight.house.gov. Those folks are working on some of the
toughest issues in this town, and often they are bitterly divided along
partisan lines. They are working on those issues that tend to separate
Americans rather than unite them. They have sent us a bill today that
was so widely supported, it passed by a voice vote unanimously out of
that committee. It then went to the Committee on Rules, where every
single Member of Congress was invited to improve it. Three Members of
Congress took us up on the invitation, and every single one of their
amendments was made in order by this rule.
Mr. Speaker, we have lots of things that are going to bring my friend
from Massachusetts and I back down to this floor, and we are going to
disagree heartily about those. Today we have an example of something
that brings us together. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
this rule that brings our OGR unanimously passed bill to the floor, and
vote ``yes'' on that underlying bill, just as our Republican and
Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform did.
Mr. Speaker, there are lots of challenges ahead of us. This is one we
can put in the books as a success for our constituents back home. I ask
for a ``yes'' vote.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 280 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 286)
directing certain officials of the executive branch to
provide information to the House of Representatives that will
enable the House to meet its constitutional responsibility to
conduct oversight of the executive branch by investigating
potential conflicts of interests of President Donald J.
Trump. The resolution shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H. Res. 286.
____
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
[[Page H2918]]
for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and
allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer
an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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 the resolution, if ordered, and
suspending the rules and passing S. 496.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 193, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 229]
YEAS--230
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--193
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
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--7
Bucshon
Chaffetz
Marino
Newhouse
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Walorski
{time} 1359
Messrs. VARGAS, KILMER, NOLAN, DEMINGS, HUFFMAN, and Mrs. TORRES
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GROTHMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226,
noes 192, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 230]
AYES--226
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marshall
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stivers
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
[[Page H2919]]
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--192
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
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--12
Bucshon
Chaffetz
Cheney
Hurd
Marino
Newhouse
Royce (CA)
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Stewart
Valadao
Walorski
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1407
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 230.
Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 230.
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 230.
____________________