[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 3, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H3080-H3089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 244, HONORING
INVESTMENTS IN RECRUITING AND EMPLOYING AMERICAN MILITARY VETERANS ACT
OF 2017
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 305 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 305
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 244)
to encourage effective, voluntary investments to recruit,
employ, and retain men and women who have served in the
United States military with annual Federal awards to
employers recognizing such efforts, and for other purposes,
with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the
House, without intervention of any point of order, a single
motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the
Senate amendments numbered 2 and 3, and that the House concur
in the Senate amendment numbered 1 with an amendment
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-16
modified by the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate
amendments 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 final adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
Sec. 2. The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may
insert in the Congressional Record not later than May 3,
2017, such material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate
amendments and the motion specified in the first section of
this resolution.
Sec. 3. The chair of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence may insert in the Congressional Record not later
than May 3, 2017, such material as he may deem explanatory of
intelligence authorization measures for the fiscal year 2017.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my
friend, 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. COLE. 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 Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported
a rule for consideration of two very important measures. First, the
resolution provides for consideration of Senate amendments to H.R. 244,
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee. In addition, the resolution provides for consideration of
the FY 2017 Intelligence Authorization Act as an amendment to the
underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us is the first
successful bicameral, bipartisan negotiation of the Trump
administration. It has broad bipartisan support in both Houses of
Congress. All Members can feel good about the work of the
Appropriations Committee, especially our chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen of
New Jersey, and our Ranking Member, Mrs. Lowey of New York. In the
House, the work must continue today but, hopefully, will be concluded
today.
The package in front of us not only keeps the government open and
operating through the end of the fiscal year, but it also represents a
successful completion of key member priorities on both sides of the
aisle.
This bill provides for a $25.7 billion increase in defense spending,
notably including an additional $7.3 billion for Department of Defense
readiness and training, as well as the largest pay raise our troops
have received in 6 years. These funds will help us enhance our military
readiness and marks an end to the erosion of our national military
strength.
Importantly, we accomplished this without a dollar-for-dollar
increase in nondefense discretionary spending, a practice which was
imposed upon us by the previous administration. That practice
threatened to drive our national deficit even higher. I am pleased that
we broke that connection, for we should never operate under such a
formula in the future.
This measure also provides for an increase of $1.5 billion in funding
for border security. $772 million is available for key administration
priorities like border security technology enhancements and
infrastructure improvements. It also increases funding for Customs and
Border Patrol to improve operational effectiveness. And, I note, the
President has wide authority and latitude to deploy these dollars where
[[Page H3081]]
they should do the most good. This is the largest increase in border
security funding in almost a decade.
Domestically, this bill funds hundreds, if not thousands, of Member
priorities. We reached a bipartisan agreement on opioid funding,
redirecting over $500 million to combat this epidemic affecting every
district in the Nation. We funded health care for miners, a key
priority for many of our Members.
We secured the second consecutive $2 billion increase for the
National Institutes of Health, the Nation's lead biomedical research
organization and a key driver of the hope of treating new diseases,
saving countless lives, and, incidentally, driving down healthcare
costs.
We also secured an increase for the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, which will help enhance our readiness to combat pandemics
and respond to public health crises.
We increased funding for GEAR UP and TRIO, two essential programs
that help first-generation college students actually go to college, and
increased funding for Head Start by $90 million. Every Member of this
House has a victory someplace in this bill, and this was done, Mr.
Speaker, by cutting spending in other less essential areas and making
tough choices.
In the Labor-H provisions of this bill, for instance, we actually
spend $2.8 billion less than President Obama requested, and $1 billion
less than we actually spent last year.
Finally, and most importantly, this bill is the product of a
successful bipartisan, bicameral negotiation. This shows all of us that
we have the ability for the President, the Republicans in the House and
the Senate, and the Democrats in the House and the Senate to sit down
and work together on important issues. I am heartened by this success,
and I believe it suggests our ability to work together in the future on
other crucially important pieces of legislation like tax reform and
infrastructure improvements.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017. As you know, this
$1 trillion omnibus will provide discretionary funding for most of the
Federal Government for the remaining 5 months of fiscal year 2017.
Before moving to the specifics of the legislation, we need to get a
few things straight. It bears repeating that the appropriations
measures contained in this bill should have been passed months ago.
While I am glad that we have arrived at this compromise, and the words
of my good friend from Oklahoma, I certainly support with regard to the
extraordinary work of the chairman and the ranking member, and their
respective staffs, as well as all the appropriators, generally, and
their staffs, they have done a good job with reference to the measure,
as far as compromise is concerned.
But the fact remains that the bill is 7 months late. The House
Committee on Appropriations is already hard at work for fiscal year
2018, and yet this body is still trying to fund programs for the
current fiscal year. The root cause of this disarray does not lie with
the Appropriations Committee but with the majority's leadership, or
lack thereof, in this Congress and in the White House.
{time} 1245
I also need to level another critique at my friends across the aisle
who have time and again brought us to the brink of a government
shutdown. We needed months of negotiations and three continuing
resolutions to keep the government funded. Much of the time, poison
pill riders gummed up the works. Among other things, the majority
continuously tries to strip funding from women's healthcare
organizations, slash environmental protections, and end protections for
Federal employees through the appropriations process.
Well, here we are, Mr. Speaker, 7 months later, with a bill that does
none of these things. Yet we do it again and again, lurching from
manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis. I said yesterday or the day
before in the Rules Committee that we will be back here with a stopgap
measure and repeat this same crisis routine that we have done for many
of the years that I have had the privilege of serving in this body. Mr.
Speaker, maybe next time we will skip the grandstanding and start off
with a commonsense measure from the get-go.
This brings me to the bill itself. The measure includes $1.07
trillion in base discretionary budget authority, including $551 billion
in base defense spending, $518.5 billion in base nondefense spending,
$62.1 billion in overseas contingency operations defense spending, and
$16.5 billion in overseas contingency operations nondefense spending.
More than 160 partisan toxic riders were floated but kept out of the
legislation.
Despite Donald John Trump's insistence on draconian cuts, the omnibus
includes $1.2 billion in additional nondefense budget authority. It
provides funding to alleviate Puerto Rico's emergency budget shortfall
and their underfunded Medicaid program. It increases funding for the
National Institutes of Health by $2 billion. It provides $1.1 billion
in disaster assistance for regions affected by storms and flooding in
2015 and 2016, and it includes $900 million in humanitarian assistance
to alleviate international famine.
Toward that end, with reference to famine in the world, we are
witnessing a rising number of countries that are experiencing famine.
Without identifying them all, it is estimated that some 20 million
people in the world are at risk of dying from starvation. In this
country, too many people are in a position of being hungry during the
course of a day. In the land of plenty, we can do better.
In this vein, I was pleased to see the inclusion of language that
will positively impact the district that I serve and every other
district that faces the threat of natural disasters. Toward that end,
my good friend from Oklahoma is absolutely correct. In the compromise
measure, there are some things that will impact all of our districts,
and that is, in my judgment, as it should be.
Additionally, I am one of few Members around here who continuously
argues that Members should have earmark responsibilities so that they
can be held accountable for things that are vital in their districts
rather than allowing the bureaucracy to dominate that sphere.
The language clarifies a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
codifying the Department of Labor's views on lifting the work
restrictions on insurance claims adjusters responding to disasters.
When a natural disaster strikes, like a hurricane or a wildfire,
insurance adjusters are there to help those affected piece their lives
back together and get back on their feet. By ensuring that adjusters
can quickly and readily respond to disasters, this codification helps
them complete their important work.
I did say in the Rules Committee, and I have said for 20 years here,
that this Congress needs a disaster relief committee that is
constituted of all of the chairs of the committees of jurisdiction. It
is not complicated. It is something that is done in other countries so
that when these disasters occur--be they fire, flood, hurricane,
tornado, or any disaster--we can respond more quickly than we do now,
rather than allowing for the residual remains of the kinds of disasters
that we experience in this country.
Just this past weekend, at least 16 lives were lost and many people
were injured in tornadic activity in the States of Alabama,
Mississippi, and Arkansas and floods in Missouri, and we need to
respond to those.
Additionally, something else that I want to say that I consider to be
important are the responsibilities of FEMA. While I believe they do an
extraordinary job with what they are allowed to work with, I don't know
what it takes to get across to people that FEMA can only react when
there are a certain number of people that have lost their homes. Please
know this: when 1 person loses their home to a natural disaster, it is
just as important as if 1,000 or 100,000 lost their home; and we,
[[Page H3082]]
this Congress, need to be able to respond to that 1 the same way we do
to 1,000.
Furthermore, I was glad to see that the bill includes year-round Pell
grants to provide 1 million students in this country with an additional
average award of $1,650, and it permanently extends health insurance
benefits for retired mineworkers.
I might add that that has been and will continue to be a bipartisan
effort to provide for the health of those mineworkers. Hopefully, in
spite of all the talk coming out of the White House, we may, one day,
find a way to help those that have lost their jobs because of the
industrial changes transition to good jobs.
But what is included in this bill is just as important as what is
not. In his first major budget negotiation, Donald John Trump made many
demands that were defeated. He requested $30 billion in additional
defense spending and $3 billion to fund construction of a U.S.-Mexico
border wall and is around crowing that there is money in this bill to
do something about the wall, and there is not.
The President wanted policy riders to restrict sanctuary cities from
receiving Federal grants. He wanted to defund Planned Parenthood and
undermine health care. As I have already said, there were 160 riders
that were floated here in this measure but are not included.
Rather than governing responsibly, Donald John Trump and the House
Freedom Caucus have spent a good deal of time and energy pushing
partisan interests, from repealing health care to gutting the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the
Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and successful
programs like community development block grants. All of these programs
are fully funded in this measure.
As the President gets cozy with authoritarian strongmen around the
world and revisits the history of the Civil War--and for your
information, Donald Trump, it was slavery that caused the war--Congress
has stepped up and asserted itself, and I am glad.
I have said repeatedly that the legislative branch has given too much
authority not to this President but to the one before him, the one
before him, and the one before that one. We have continuously ceded our
authority. So it is understood by virtue of this action and, I hope,
future action that the legislature is an equal branch of our
government, and we need to act like it.
Funding the government is one of the most important responsibilities
Congress has. There are, undeniably, differences in policy priorities
between Members in this body, Democrats and Republicans, and
differences between Democrats and differences between Republicans in
this body, but holding the Federal budget hostage is not the way to
work through these problems. This measure is a responsible compromise
that serves the interests of the American public, and that is what we
came here to do.
My good friend from Oklahoma, last night in the Rules Committee, said
that the people that win in this measure are the American people, and I
agree with him. That is why I was even dismayed and, quite frankly,
disturbed at the irresponsible comment that Donald John Trump tweeted
yesterday morning that what this country needs is ``a good shutdown''
in September.
I made it a point, when we were in the Rules Committee, to ask the
fine young gentleman that works with me to learn the context because I
just can't believe that this man comes out and says that this
institution needs to have ``a good shutdown.''
Donald John Trump, there is no such thing as a good shutdown.
The President champions a government shutdown not only to his but to
his party's peril. The hardworking and working poor Americans are at
peril with that kind of undertaking. He does so to the peril of our men
and women fighting overseas, to the peril of working families and their
health care, to education, and to safe, clean, and secure communities.
Donald John Trump may think he can run the country on Twitter while
daydreaming of taxpayer-funded jaunts to his private golf club, but he
needs to wise up. We don't need a good shutdown. We need a good leader.
If he continues and isn't prepared to get serious, then he needs to get
out of the way.
As my colleague Congressman McGovern said yesterday, rather than a
shutdown, the President ought to shut his mouth. I will put it another
way from the vernacular: zip his lip, put that Twitter off somewhere on
the side and let birds tweet while he talks sensibly to the American
people.
Maybe the President thinks that if the government shuts down people
suddenly don't need to pay taxes and that national parks become free.
Maybe he thinks that if the government shuts down--if we have a good
government shutdown--every regulation suddenly stops and corporations
are free to run wild without complying to clean water or clean air
standards.
I don't know what he is thinking. I don't think anybody else around
here knows what he is thinking. I am not even certain he knows what he
is thinking. And to be honest, I would be afraid to see what is going
on in his head.
But here is what I do know. According to the financial ratings agency
Standard & Poor's, the 2013 government shutdown cost the United
States--the American people--$24 billion. According to a report from
the Council of Economic Advisers, it sidetracked the creation of as
many as 120,000 jobs.
I hope you are listening, Donald John Trump, because these aren't
alternative facts.
The furloughs amounted to more than 5.5 million days' worth of
Federal employment lost spread across dozens of agencies. Businesses
that relied on tourism lost out on more than a half-billion dollars.
The Small Business Administration couldn't process some 700
applications for $140 million in small businesses loans.
{time} 1300
According to the U.S. Travel Association, the 16-day shutdown cost
$152 million per day in lost travel spending. According to CNBC, 2
weeks into the latest shutdown, the Internal Revenue Service reported a
backlog of 1.2 million verification requests that could not be
processed.
Mr. Speaker, we don't need a good government shutdown. We don't need
a shutdown at all. We just got through a 7-month negotiation to keep
the government open.
Naturally, the media picked up on the fact that Donald John Trump got
virtually none of his priorities. When the report started to air, he
threw a political temper tantrum and took to Twitter to undermine the
compromise.
I will be honest at this point: it is nothing new, so it shouldn't
surprise anyone; nor should the backlash that ensued or his sudden
change of heart. In just a few hours, Donald John Trump went from
condemning the deal and whining about the rules of the Senate to
hailing it as a great compromise. I must have missed that chapter in
his ``The Art of the Deal.''
So let's leave it at this: we need to do more, not less, to
strengthen our communities and help working families. I urge President
Donald John Trump to move past the campaign rhetoric and get serious.
I hope you are listening, sir, because you can put that in a tweet.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.
Also, Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities
toward the President.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
To respond to a few of my friend's points, Mr. Speaker, I want to
begin by agreeing with my friend, actually.
As he knows, I agree with his point that this should have been done
many months ago, and could have been done, in my view, many months ago.
We should have done this in December. I don't think we did the country
or ourselves or the President any favors by delaying that. So my friend
is right about that decision, and I hope we all learn a lesson from it.
I also agree with my friend that, because we delayed, the 2018
appropriations process will be extremely difficult and truncated. It
will make work harder. We may find ourselves back here in a number of
months asking for
[[Page H3083]]
some brief extension as we continue to work through our problems. I
hope not, but my friend's observation on that point I agree with.
I want to disagree with my friend pretty strongly about his
observation about the 160 riders that we decided in the negotiation not
to press, and I want to explain why we decided not to press them.
Frankly, we don't need to press them anymore. Almost 160 of those
were designed to limit or reverse rulings of the last administration--
either rules or executive decisions. Well, Mr. Trump is now the
President of the United States and he is going to have the ability to
do almost all of those things on his own. He doesn't need legislative
instruction from us. He will certainly get support as he works through
that list with the executive branch, which he runs.
I also want to add, just to clarify, it is important to note that
there is nothing in this bill that funds Planned Parenthood in any way,
shape, or form. As a matter of fact, there is a family planning title
and grants are awarded out of that title by the Department of Health
and Human Services.
Sometimes in the past, Planned Parenthood has received money in those
grants. Now there is new management at the Department of Health and
Human Services, so we will see how this goes. This Congress has never
appropriated money directly to Planned Parenthood and, frankly, I
suspect never will.
Finally, in defense of the President, I want to point out that we are
adding billions of dollars to defense of this country, which is
desperately needed because, frankly, his predecessor had allowed it
to erode. That is because of the President's leadership.
We are making the most substantial investments in border security in
a decade. That is because of the President's leadership.
Finally, we have broken this terrible one-for-one formula that the
last administration imposed on us. In other words, to defend the United
States of America, we had to spend more money domestically, whether we
needed to or not, whether we could afford it or not. If it weren't for
President Trump, that formula would still be in existence and we would
be frittering away money in places where we don't need it and denying
support to our troops and our forces in the field when they desperately
need it. I am very grateful to the President for making that possible.
Again, with his leadership, it could not have occurred.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Byrne), my good friend, a fellow Rules Committee member, and also a
distinguished member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I
appreciate his leadership to get us here both on the Rules Committee
and the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Speaker, despite what you may hear in the media, this funding
bill is a positive step forward for the American people and a big win
for the Trump administration. I want to highlight a few reasons why.
First, delivering on President Trump's promise, this bill makes long
overdue and much-needed investments in our military. The bill boosts
military spending by $21 billion, which will help boost military
readiness and fund the largest pay raise for our troops in 6 years.
Importantly, the bill finally rejects demands of Democrats to only
increase defense spending if all other spending is also increased. This
bill ends that harmful precedent.
The bill devotes important new funding for border security. In fact,
it contains the biggest increase in border security funding in almost a
decade. This will allow us to make improvements to the wall at the
border, put more Customs and Border Protection agents on the ground,
and end the disastrous practice of ``catch and release.''
The bill includes important pro-life protections to ensure taxpayer
money is not used to fund abortions. Just as important, the bill does
not contain a penny of funding for Planned Parenthood. I am going to
say it again: there is not a penny in here for Planned Parenthood.
The bill includes important Second Amendment protections, increases
funding to help fight crime, supports funding for Israel, provides
money for missile defense, and sets aside additional resources to
defeat ISIS.
Even more, the bill cuts funding to the EPA, freezes funding for the
IRS, and reduces the Federal Government's role in education.
Finally, the bill makes progress and priorities important to my folks
in southwest Alabama. For example, the bill fully funds three littoral
combat ships, which are built, in part, by Austal USA in Mobile. These
ships are critical to the United States Navy and are necessary if we
are to reach the 355-ship fleet that President Trump wants. This
funding bill will ensure we continue to build these first class vessels
in Mobile.
The bill also includes a provision important to our red snapper
fishermen. With the help of Senator Richard Shelby, we were able to
secure a permanent expansion of State waters out to nine nautical
miles.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect--no compromise ever is--but I
commend President Trump in negotiating a good bill to begin the process
of implementing the priorities the American people sent him and us to
Washington to accomplish.
President Trump has called on Congress to pass this funding bill
while we work to make even more progress in the upcoming fiscal year
2018 funding negotiations. I intend to do just that, and I call on my
colleagues to do the same.
I am glad to support President Trump, this rule, and the underlying
bill.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to advise how
much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 11 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, news flash here for those that might have been trying to
make plans for leaving here tomorrow morning: it appears that House
Republicans are intent on trying to bring TrumpCare back to life.
The Republican healthcare bill was bad the first time, bad the second
time, and its latest iteration is even worse. In addition to kicking 24
million people off their health coverage, gutting Medicaid in order to
give a trillion-dollar tax cut--mostly to the richest Americans--and
dismantling the requirement to provide the essential health benefits,
the latest proposal completely guts protections for people with
preexisting conditions and imposes an unlimited age tax on older
Americans.
Now we see in the press that the Republican leadership is trying to
cut yet another backroom deal on expensive, high-risk pools to try and
muster enough votes to pass this monstrosity.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has not gone through regular order from the
start. There have been no hearings. There is no CBO score. We are
reading in the press that even more changes are on the horizon.
I wish I could start reading in the press or looking at television
and just have people that have the responsibility and leadership to
inform those of us that are in the minority just what the plan really
constitutes and when it will be put forward. Every single Member in
this institution should be as outraged as I am, regardless of party.
This is a bill that will affect every American.
Therefore, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an
amendment to the rule that would change the rules of the House to
prevent any healthcare-related legislation from being considered if it
does not have a CBO cost estimate; or if it would deny health coverage
or require higher premiums due to preexisting conditions; impose
lifetime limits on health coverage; prevent individuals under age 26
from being covered under their parents' plans; reduce the number of
people receiving health care under the Affordable Care Act; increase
costs to seniors by reopening the doughnut hole and raising
prescription drug costs; require people to pay for preventive services,
including cancer screening; reduce Medicare solvency or change the
Medicare guarantee; or reduce Federal taxes on the 1 percent of the
population with the highest incomes or increase taxes on the 80 percent
of hardworking Americans earning moderate to low income.
[[Page H3084]]
Every American deserves affordable, high-quality health care. This
amendment would ensure that the Republican bill can't sacrifice that
goal in favor of giving tax cuts to the wealthy.
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 Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways
and Means, to discuss the proposal.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Judge Hastings for yielding.
The previous question I offer with Congresswoman Slaughter would
prevent any legislation from being considered if the legislation would
deny coverage or require higher premiums for preexisting conditions,
increase costs for seniors for prescription drugs, or reduce Medicare
solvency.
I have listened to the previous three speakers on the Republican side
talk about national defense. That is understandable, but might we, for
the purpose of this discussion, also acknowledge the following: real
national defense also means providing health security for members of
American families. That is part of the balance that we should be
recognizing.
The priorities on the other side are the following: they are going to
turn the issue of preexisting condition back to a voluntary nature at
the State level.
As one who comes from local government, we should recognize the
following: every time there is an economic downturn, you can be certain
that Governors are going to use the money that was intended for health
care to balance the budgets, and they are going to call it good
management.
They are undermining the health security of the American people with
their proposal on TrumpCare.
{time} 1315
They have been threatening to eliminate coverage for millions of
Americans for years, and now they are telling us they are on the eve of
accomplishing just that.
But what does it mean for the American family? They want to go back
to the days when you could be denied routine health insurance because
you might have been born with diabetes, you might have had a liver
transplant in midlife, you might have had a diagnosis of cancer in
midlife, and you can no longer be insured despite the fact that you
have spent a lifetime paying those premiums? And we are going to make
this an option of the States to decide? This is going backwards on the
issue of health security.
But that is not enough, as we know. They also are going to ask you to
pay more for hospital care, more for prescription drugs, more for
mental health and substance abuse treatment, more for pediatric care,
and certainly more for cancer care. And they are going to call this an
improvement in health care delivery?
Well, their recent improvements have made it clear. Let's not forget
the previous bill had an underlying $1 trillion tax giveaway that would
drain $75 billion from the Medicare trust fund and cut $840 billion
from Medicaid, all for the purpose of providing a $1 trillion tax cut
to the people at the very top.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts
an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. NEAL. Fewer covered, higher costs, and fewer protections for the
American family. The previous question that Louise Slaughter and I are
going to offer is the following:
We would prevent any of this legislation that is proposed that would
be considered harmful to the consumers, as the Republican bill is.
Americans need assurance about health care and, by the way, some
predictability.
During my time of service here, I have seen how difficult it is to do
health insurance. I think there is only one person in Washington, by
the way, who said: Who knew health insurance could be this complicated?
Well, for those of us who have served here for any extended period of
time, I can assure you, we all knew that health care was complicated in
terms of delivery and economic consequence. But that is not enough for
our friends today. They want to change the basic tenet of the guarantee
of ending preexisting conditions.
I had a Republican friend I talked to yesterday. He said: I wish I
was still back in the House because I would vote against that bill. He
said: My daughter had a liver transplant, and now they are saying, with
preexisting conditions, it is going to be up to the Governor of a State
to decide whether or not she can continue to get care? We need the
guarantee of Medicare coupled with the expansion of Medicaid, which has
now offered insurance to 24 million Americans that didn't have
insurance prior to the Affordable Care Act.
I would say this as well. And remember, half of that number, that is
private insurance. We kept the private sector alive for the purpose of
offering discipline to price. It has accomplished that. Healthcare
spending in America has plateaued.
But, again, on this occasion, we won't let the facts get in the way
of a rigid ideology that says we need to change the Affordable Care Act
because Barack Obama offered it. That is what the test is now for the
American people: Who sponsored legislation?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. NEAL. We have debated health care since Harry Truman was
President. We have debated health care since Lyndon Johnson offered
Medicare and Medicaid. Bob Dole and Mitt Romney and Richard Nixon all
understood you needed the mandate to provide health care to all members
of the American family. They are going to shun that today and tomorrow
by turning their backs on preexisting conditions. Remember, real
national defense also means providing health care for members of the
American family.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I go to my next speaker, I want to take a moment to respond to
my friends.
Mr. Speaker, I actually came here to debate the appropriations bill,
which is a great bipartisan compromise, but I am always happy to engage
in the healthcare debate as well, if that is what my friends choose to
do. I am happy to do it because I remember the conditions under which
ObamaCare was passed.
I remember the promises that we would save $2,500 a family--not true.
I remember, if you liked your plan, you could keep it--not true.
I remember, if you liked your doctor, you could keep that
individual--not true.
This was sold, frankly, on a tissue of fabrications and some
predictions that were outlandishly false.
Those people who say this is a good system, come to my State. We are
down to a single provider--one. That provider, by the way, I always say
thank God for them, because they are losing money. We are down to one.
Our rates are going up 69 percent.
So anybody who thinks this is a successful system should go look at
it. If it were successful, my friends would probably still be in the
majority instead of the minority. It has not been successful. The
American people have, in election after election, rendered a verdict
that this particular system is not meeting their needs, and it badly
needs to be overhauled and changed, if not rooted out completely.
Frankly, again, as, I think, through the President's actions and what
my colleagues in the leadership of my party are doing, I am very glad
they are working overtime right now to try and make sure that we have
something better for the American people than my friends delivered on
the other side of the aisle when they had the opportunity to do so. It
is not working.
I hope very much we have to cancel travel plans so the next day or
two we can actually vote on this. I would be ecstatic to do that. So,
again, I would be happy to debate that. When the time comes, we will.
But I look forward to engaging in that debate because I am absolutely
convinced we can do a lot better for the American people than we
[[Page H3085]]
did when ObamaCare was passed, and we can implement something a lot
better for the American people than we did when it was rolled out. And
we certainly can avoid some of the catastrophic consequences.
As for my friend's concerns about preexisting conditions, frankly,
they are not going to be reversed, but I happen to live in a State
where I trust my Governor and my legislature to make smart decisions.
Frankly, I trust them a lot more than I do anybody in Washington, D.C.,
to understand what is going on in my State. I suspect most people in
here actually trust their Governors and their legislature to be more in
touch with the needs of their people than anybody in Washington, D.C.,
happens to be, so I am happy to see a devolution of decisionmaking from
Washington to other parts of the country. As I read the Constitution,
we call that federalism. It has worked very well for the American
people for almost 240 years.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Fourth
District of Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar), my good friend in his second
term, but a new member of the Committee on Appropriations. I am very
glad to have him on my Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education, and Related Agencies.
Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Cole, Chairman
Frelinghuysen, and the entire Committee on Appropriations, as well as
the President and congressional leaders in both the House and the
Senate for their work on this bipartisan appropriations bill.
This legislation is not perfect, but it addresses many priorities for
the people of Michigan and the United States. It funds the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative, which protects the Great Lakes. It instructs
the Army Corps of Engineers to turn over its report on stopping Asian
carp from invading the Great Lakes.
It funds important scientific research at Michigan State University,
and it continues support for vaccines against emerging threats. It also
commits funding for cures research at the National Institutes of
Health, including the fight against Alzheimer's, so we can work on
stopping this nefarious disease that steals golden years from our
seniors.
For the rural communities in my district, this legislation increases
funding for rural development grants and the Farm Service Agency.
This legislation promotes border security and integrity, providing
more money for Customs and Border Patrol and increasing the number of
Border Patrol agents hired.
This legislation will ensure that our men and women in uniform have
the resources they need to keep us safe from threats, including North
Korea, Russia, Iran, and ISIS.
This legislation makes important cuts, including eliminating wasteful
funding for U.N. programs that overreach and run counter to the ideals
of our country.
Finally, this legislation extends prohibitions on funding for
abortion that have been in place for years.
This legislation addresses many important priorities for the people
of Michigan and our entire Nation, and I urge my colleagues to support
it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my friend.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the omnibus
spending agreement that is before us today, which will finally fund the
government for the remainder of fiscal year 2017. The bill before us is
not a perfect bill, but it represents a good bipartisan compromise.
Mr. Speaker, we need to engage in good faith discussions about our
values and priorities, not participate in posturing to social media. It
is my hope that my congressional colleagues on both sides of the aisle
will continue the constructive tone that this agreement represents.
This fiscal year 2017 agreement delivers on many priorities important
to Rhode Island. It restores the year-round Pell Grant Program or
summer Pell eligibility, allowing summer students to receive Pell grant
funds to help them finish their degrees on time.
Rather than slash funding as the President had requested, this
compromise also adds $2 billion in funding to the National Institutes
of Health, which conducts vital research in our efforts to treat and
cure catastrophic diseases and drives innovative economic development.
On the defense side, this agreement funds vital national security
programs, including the continued procurement of Virginia class
submarines and ongoing development of the new Columbia class, work that
I am proud to say happens at Quonset Point in my district.
I want to thank all those involved in these negotiations on both
sides of the aisle for their commitment to achieving a good faith
compromise that will keep the government open and working for the
American people. I hope we can continue on a similar bipartisan
agreement as we plan for the next fiscal year.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), my very good friend and my fellow member of
the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to rise in strong support of
this rule and the underlying legislation, which is the product of a lot
of effort on the part of a lot of people on a very bipartisan basis.
I would first like to thank and congratulate our distinguished chair
and ranking members for their work on the 2017 Consolidated
Appropriations Act and for their leadership in bringing this
legislation forward today to address a number of timely issues facing
our Nation.
I certainly want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Cole, to my immediate
left for his strong work on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education and Related Agencies bill, which I will mention at
some point here as well, but his leadership has been extraordinary on
this issue.
I would like to draw special attention to some of this legislation's
provisions that will further support our veterans and enhance our
military's readiness.
Division L of the underlying bill provides supplemental funding to
augment the appropriations that were provided to MILCON and the VA
accounts, military construction and the VA accounts, last September.
Specifically, this bill will allow us to further address the opioid
epidemic that has escalated within so many communities across the
country and affected individuals and families from a broad range of
backgrounds and professions.
The 2017 bill will provide $50 million in additional current-year
funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve opioid and
substance abuse prevention and treatment for veterans. Those funds will
allow the VA to achieve full implementation of their responsibilities
under title IX of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016.
I just raised this issue less than an hour ago with VA Secretary
David Shulkin in this morning's hearing. He stressed the importance of
these funds to stay ahead of this challenge and provide comprehensive
treatments to our veterans. It is my hope that the lessons learned from
this public health crisis will be remembered so that we can prevent
similar episodes from occurring in the future.
In addition, the FY17 Consolidated Appropriations Act will support
readiness and infrastructure improvements and facilitate future force
structure growth by providing all our military services with the full
amount requested for military construction efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with so many of my colleagues from both sides of
the aisle that we need to make investments in our military readiness. I
would like to stress that the investments in the infrastructure and
military construction programs that support our troops at home and
abroad are critical aspects of our overall readiness posture. This bill
will move us in the right direction by addressing needs for both our
Active-Duty and our National Guard and Reserve forces.
{time} 1330
I would also like to talk about some other aspects of this
legislation, too, in the underlying bill. Many pressing needs are
addressed here.
[[Page H3086]]
Specifically, we are talking about a very significant pay increase, a
2.1 percent pay increase for our troops. It is the largest pay increase
in 6 years.
This legislation makes a substantial downpayment on our efforts, and
the Trump administration's efforts, to enhance and increase military
spending to address the various threats that we are seeing throughout
the world.
I just returned from South Korea and Okinawa, Japan, and we have many
challenges in Northeast Asia, that I won't go into here today. But we
all know that we have some real obligations, particularly for our
United States Navy.
I also wanted to mention, too, my good friend, Chairman Cole. He led
the effort, along with Senator Roy Blunt, to increase funding for
medical research, critical lifesaving medical research to the National
Institutes of Health by $2 billion in this legislation, taking the
funding level from $32 billion to $34 billion. And that is on top of
what we heard in fiscal year 2016, which took us up $2 billion, as
well, from $30 billion to $32 billion.
So the commitment of this side of the aisle to medical research, I
think, is strong, and we are backing it up with our dollars. We had to
set some priorities, and Chairman Cole did that in the labor health
bill. He set those priorities, and we said: This is one of them. I am
proud that we as Republicans are stepping up on medical research. I am
also pleased, too, that many of our Democratic friends are supporting
this in this effort as well.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that this
legislation, in addition to this robust increase for medical research,
the chairman also provided substantial support for early childhood, a
priority to him and to many of us.
And there are other areas, too. Pell grants made some great changes,
too--year-round Pell grants for so many students who are struggling
with college affordability.
I also want to point out, too, on border security, a downpayment has
been made here as well. This legislation provides $1.5 billion
additionally for border security. This will help us move closer to
establishing greater operational control of our border, which is
something I think we all agree needs to be done.
These are just a few of the provisions of this legislation beyond
what I am responsible for--military construction and VA--that are
worthy.
I would urge support of this bill. I would also like to point out
that we did pass the Military Construction and VA Appropriations bill
back in September on time. It is the first appropriations bill passed
on time since 2009. I want to take a little credit for that.
But these other 11 bills that have been discussed here today need our
support. We need to keep this government running. We have done it in a
very thoughtful, bipartisan, measured way, and we have been very
responsible. This bill needs to get to the President's desk
immediately.
Again, I urge support for this legislation, and I support the rule as
well.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to close.
The President has said that Americans would win so much, they would
be tired of winning. I think for once he and I may be in agreement.
Today's measure advances medical research, protects coal miners,
fights back against the opioid epidemic and international disasters,
and protects funding for science, education, and health care. It should
not have taken us 7 months to get here. But I hope this measure will
give the Appropriations Committee a springboard for fiscal year 2018.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank my good friend. It is always a pleasure, honestly, to
engage in debate with him because it is going to be spirited, but it is
going to be civil. So I thank my friend for that.
And, frankly, when my friend points out that he and President Trump
are actually on the same side for once, I think the second coming may
not be very far. So we are all in a pretty good mood here.
But I do want to echo a couple of points that my friend made, and
made, as always, with great skill. There is a lot in this bill that
brings us together. This was a product of genuine compromise. We have
Republicans in the House and Democrats in the House, Republicans in the
Senate and Democrats in the Senate, and, obviously, the administration.
It is really a five-corner negotiation.
I think we ought to step back a little bit and reflect that, in the
course of that, while all those parties began with very different
positions, and some verbal fisticuffs, as well, they actually moved
closer together over the course of discussion. And that has effectively
meant that we are going to have the first bipartisan, bicameral
negotiation in this administration that has been successful.
I would hope it becomes a model for some of the things that lie in
front of us, things like infrastructure, and like tax reform. I
recognize we won't always agree. But, to me, this agreement shows that
we can work towards agreements, if we will sit in good faith and
compromise with one another.
I think the President, frankly, did a lot of good things from his
point of view here. I think the additional money for our men and women
in uniform, the raise in pay for those we have asked so much from, and
who have never let us down, is something he can be proud of.
I think the additional money on the border, where we know we have a
security problem, we may debate the best way to address that. That is
fair enough. But that is an achievement that he deserves credit for.
And I think, frankly, breaking this artificial linkage of domestic
spending and security spending was something that is really important.
Sometimes we will actually need more domestically than, perhaps, we
need in defense. But we are going to have to look at those things
logically, not create artificial formulas. I actually fear sometimes my
side might do that in reverse by demanding cuts in exchange for
military spending when those cuts are, in themselves, not wise.
Finally, I look at things where we find a lot of common purpose here.
My friend, Mr. Dent, mentioned a number of those. Things like more
money for the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Disease
Control. Believe me, pandemics and bioterrorists don't care if you are
Republican or Democrat, or Liberal or Conservative. We have to maintain
this effort. It is extraordinarily important.
I think, again, and my friends pointed out, we worked together to
provide additional funds for early childhood, to provide additional
money through programs like GEAR UP and TRIO, to help those who have
never had an opportunity to go to college and succeed. And, frankly,
things like the year-round Pell grant, that, again, as speakers from
both sides of the aisle pointed out, are going to help students
actually succeed and help them wrestle with the financial burden. So
there is a lot in here to be proud of.
Now, our vote on the rule is always a partisan exercise, so I
recognize that. But I am very proud that, after that vote, we will have
substantial numbers of Members from both sides of the aisle voting
together on something they worked on together and achieved. It will be
sent over to the Senate, and I think we will see the same result there,
and eventually to the desk of the President of the United States, and I
think he can sign it with a great deal of pride and a recognition that:
hey, occasionally, bipartisanship and negotiation actually work.
With that, again, I want to thank my very good friend for the debate.
And I want to point out in closing that this is so much better than a
continuing resolution. This is real governance at work. This is us
working together, exercising oversight, and appropriately funding, and
compromises on occasion, important functions for the American people.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 305 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 4. Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following
new clause:
[[Page H3087]]
RESTRICTIONS ON CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
RELATING TO HEALTHCARE
13. (a) It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report which includes
any provision described in paragraph (b).''
(b) A provision referred to in paragraph (a) is a provision
which, if enacted into law, would result in any of the
following:
(1) The denial of health insurance coverage to individuals
on the basis that such individuals have a pre-existing
condition or a requirement for individuals with a pre-
existing condition to pay more for premiums on the basis of
such individuals having such a preexisting condition.
(2) The elimination of the prohibition on life time limits
on the dollar value of health insurance coverage benefits.
(3) The termination of the ability of individuals under 26
years of age to be included on their parent's employer or
individual health coverage.
(4) The reduction in the number of people receiving health
plan coverage pursuant to the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and Education Affordability
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (PL 111-152).
(5) An increased cost to seniors for prescription drug
coverage pursuant to any changes to provisions closing the
Medicare prescription drug `donuthole'.
(6) The requirement that individuals pay for preventive
services, such as for mammography, health screening, and
contraceptive services.
(7) The reduction of Medicare solvency or any changes to
the Medicare guarantee.
(8) The reduction of Federal taxes on the 1 percent of the
population with the highest income or increase the tax burden
(expressed as a percent of aggregate Federal taxes) on the 80
percent of the population with the lowest income.
(c) It shall not be in order to consider a measure or
matter proposing to repeal or amend the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and the Health Care and
Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (PL 111-
152), or part thereof, in the House or in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union unless an easily
searchable electronic estimate and comparison prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office is made available
on a publicly available website of the House.
(d) It shall not be in order to consider a measure or
matter proposing to repeal or amend the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and the Health Care and
Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (PL 111-
152), or part thereof, in the House or in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, that is called up
pursuant to a rule or order that makes a manager's amendment
in order or considers such an amendment to be adopted, unless
an easily searchable updated electronic estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office reflecting such amendment is made available on
a publicly available website of the House.
(e) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order
that waives the application of paragraph (a), paragraph (b),
paragraph (c), or paragraph (d). As disposition of any point
of order under paragraphs (c) through (e), the Chair shall
put the question of consideration with respect to the order,
conference report, or rule as applicable. The question of
consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member
initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an
opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening
motion except one that the House adjourn.
____
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. COLE. 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. HASTINGS. 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 H.R. 1665, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 192, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 246]
YEAS--231
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
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
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
Marino
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)
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 (MO)
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
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
[[Page H3088]]
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--192
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
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)
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
Slaughter
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
Black
Chaffetz
Demings
Gohmert
Larson (CT)
Newhouse
Poliquin
{time} 1401
Messrs. RICHMOND, McNERNEY, and DOGGETT changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ADERHOLT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 3rd 2017, I
was not present for rollcall vote 246. If I had been present for this
vote, I would have voted: ``Nay'' on rollcall vote 246.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hensarling was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Moment of Silence Remembering Victims of Destructive Storm
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, a very destructive
storm system moved across my home State of Texas, the Midwest, and the
Southeast, killing 15 of our fellow citizens and destroying whole
communities in its wake.
In Van Zandt County in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas,
which I have the privilege to represent, four constituents lost their
lives in a series of four violent tornadoes that shattered homes,
shattered lives, and devastated neighbors in the Fifth District and the
Fourth District of Texas.
These storms also tragically killed seven people in Washington,
Carroll, and Madison Counties in Arkansas; two people in Rankin and
Holmes Counties in Mississippi; one person in Nashville, Tennessee; and
one person from Billings, Missouri. Many more, Mr. Speaker, have been
hospitalized.
Joining me here today are some of the Members whose communities were
affected: Congressman Womack and Congressman Crawford of Arkansas,
Congressman Harper of Mississippi, Congressman Thompson of Mississippi,
Congressman Cooper of Tennessee, Congressman Long of Missouri, and my
fellow Texan, Congressman John Ratcliffe--again, Mr. Speaker, all who
represent communities that were tragically affected.
Mr. Speaker, our citizens who were lost have left a void in their
families and left a void in their communities. Our hearts are heavy.
Our prayers are sincere for the loved ones they leave behind and for
those who recover from their wounds.
For many of us, in our faith, there is a time to mourn. Mr. Speaker,
now is the time to mourn. But as we have, in our faith, a time to
mourn, we also have faith, Mr. Speaker, that one day our citizens will
heal and they will heal and rebuild their communities as well.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would ask the House to help us in
honoring those who lost their lives in these deadly storms and the
families and loved ones they leave behind by joining us in observing a
moment of silence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS. 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 240,
noes 186, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 247]
AYES--240
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
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
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
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lawson (FL)
Lewis (MN)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
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
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
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
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--186
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
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
[[Page H3089]]
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.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
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'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
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
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--4
Chaffetz
Duncan (SC)
Newhouse
Poliquin
{time} 1414
Mr. CRIST and Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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.
____________________