[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 144 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7106-H7115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3354, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 504 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 504
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 further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 3354) making appropriations
for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and
for other purposes.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments
en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution, and
available pro forma amendments described in section 4 of
House Resolution 500.
(b) Each further amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules shall be considered 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, may
be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action
thereon, shall not be subject to amendment except amendments
described in section 4 of House Resolution 500, and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against further amendments printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments
en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc
offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees,
shall not be subject to amendment except amendments described
in section 4 of House Resolution 500, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as
amended, to the House with such further amendments as may
have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
{time} 1245
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which 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, it is going to be a good day. It is going
to be a good day.
I don't know if you came down to Washington as a young man. I
remember sitting right up there on the second row of the gallery, and I
came into the Chamber and I was so excited. It was my first visit to
see the people's House.
The Reading Clerk was standing there at that podium and read and
read. I had absolutely no idea what was going on, and here nobody hands
you a pamphlet or anything to tell you what is happening on the floor
of the House. I thought the activity was going to happen down here, and
it was all going on up there at the podium.
That has been 40 years ago now. I now see that however long that
conversation happens, it lays the groundwork for what is going to be an
even greater conversation here on the floor of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I am fond of saying that if you come to this institution
on the right day, you are going to see a festival of democracy take
place right here. Today is going to be one of those days.
If you were on the House floor yesterday, you saw us take up the
first of these divisions in this appropriations bill. Today, because of
the work that my friend from New York and I did with the rest of the
members of the Rules Committee right up there last night, we are
bringing to the floor the remaining four divisions of H.R. 3354; 224
additional amendments. 224 additional amendments. Division A is the
Interior section; division C is the Commerce, Justice, Science section;
division D is the Financial Services section; division F is the Labor,
HHS, and Education section.
When I was on the floor yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I talked about how
proud I was of the work that we have all done here together. This
annual appropriations process has been conducted in a more
comprehensive fashion this year than in any other year in my memory.
When we get jammed, you end up with one of those long-term, yearlong
continuing resolutions that shut out every Member's voice. In a good
year, maybe, you end up with one of those giant leadership-negotiated
White House and the leader of the House and the Senate omnibus
appropriations bills that shut out all but two or three voices.
This year, the Appropriations Committee, beginning its work way back
in April, has worked through every single appropriations bill one by
one at the committee level, and we are seeing the culmination of that
effort here on the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, it has been since 2010 that the House has finished its
work before the September 30 fiscal year deadline. It was the 2009
calendar year. They were doing the work for the 2010 fiscal year. It is
hard to get this done, and it doesn't happen because Democrats are
successful or Republicans are
[[Page H7107]]
successful. It happens because the collaboration that we have together
is successful, and we are seeing the result of that today.
If we pass the underlying rule, we will make in order those 224
amendments, we will begin that process of debating the last four
divisions, and we will have the voices of this House heard.
We went until midnight last night, Mr. Speaker. We went until
midnight the night before that. I suspect midnight is going to seem
early to us where we are headed over the next couple of days. But at
the end of that process, Republicans, Democrats, folks from all regions
of the country, are going to be able to look each other in the eye and
know that--in a way that makes folks back home proud--we worked through
each and every appropriations bill and we got our work done on time.
That is why I ran for Congress, Mr. Speaker, to deliver results back
home, and that is why I am proud to be standing with my friend from New
York today delivering on those promises.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend, for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, what is happening with the appropriations bills is
unprecedented. After passing four appropriations bills earlier this
year, we are now considering the remaining eight appropriations bills
this week in 2 days. That means that we are debating the funding for
roughly two-thirds of discretionary Federal spending bills in just over
4 days.
Has any Member here really had the time to read all 1,035 pages of
these eight bills? Better yet, has anyone had time to read nearly all
the thousand amendments and determine what the impact of each one would
be?
This is the appropriations process we are talking about; the process
that used to take us days and weeks and was perfectly open so that all
Members of the House were able to propose amendments on the floor.
These are the bills that fund programs that impact the life of every
American every single day.
But we are not giving them any serious consideration they deserve,
and the minority has been virtually, literally, I would say, shut out
of the process altogether.
When the majority took control of Congress and the White House, they
promised regular order. They have not only broken that promise, they
have shattered it and stomped on it. Speaker Ryan is the only speaker
in the history of tracking statistics to never have had a truly open
rule.
An open rule would allow any Member to offer an amendment that
complies with the standing rules of the House and the Budget Act. Not a
single one. A bad process, I believe, will lead to a bad product, and
these bills are no exception. They are full of provisions that would do
real harm to millions of Americans.
Inside these bills, the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, passed in
the wake of the biggest recession since the Great Depression, would be
tattered. The biggest banks still in control of the people who got us
in trouble in the first place would be allowed to run roughshod over
the economy again, paving the way for another Great Recession or worse.
Try as we could to find out what would be the substitute for Dodd-
Frank to prevent them from doing that again, there is no answer they
would be able to do it. Under Dodd-Frank, we have had a record-setting
streak of more than 80 consecutive months of private sector job growth.
Mr. Speaker, this growth didn't come despite this law; it came because
of it.
There is also language here that would ramp up the majority's assault
on women's health; provisions that would zero out funding for Title X,
the Nation's only Federal program devoted to family planning. More than
4 million women depend on it for access to contraception.
The bills would also eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, which
serves 2.5 million women and men every year. It is relied on not just
for contraception, but for services like breast cancer screenings,
wellness visits, and STI testing.
The bills would be truly destructive if they ever became law. They
don't appear to have the necessary votes to pass the Senate, since
there are not 60 Senators willing to vote for this legislation, and
that would make one wonder why are we even going through this charade,
because we have only 9 legislative days left in the month of September.
During those 9 days, we need to raise the debt ceiling to pay the bills
we have already incurred, to fund the government for the following
year, to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program; the
Perkins Loan Program, which many low-income students rely on for their
college education; and, very importantly, the Federal Aviation
Administration. All of those expire on September 30.
We also need to address the National Flood Insurance Program, which,
on its current course, faces a shortfall of more than $25 billion. And
that will expire at the end of this month. We all know the horror of
going through Hurricane Harvey, and now Irma, and with two more, as I
understand it, starting their aim at us in the Atlantic.
If we are going to do all of this, we have to get back to the orderly
and thoughtful process. Congress can't wait for a disaster to always be
at its doorstep before acting. We need to abandon legislation by chaos
or emergency, which we often do for something that we could have done
by scheduling.
Two-thirds of the discretionary spending bills considered in a single
week is absurd and irresponsible, and I would doubt has ever taken
place before in the House of Representatives. It is time we took
control of the House and got back to regular order, which we talk about
all the time, but hardly anybody remembers. We hope for a better day,
and we hope for it soon.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My friend is absolutely right, there is a lot of work to get done.
That is why we both ran for Congress, to get that work done. I am
incredibly optimistic that we will get that work done.
I wish from time to time we would celebrate our successes as fiercely
as we observe our failures. My friend is absolutely right, there was a
time in congressional history where appropriations bills came to the
floor and any Member could offer any amendment they wanted at any time,
and the process could go on for days or weeks or months.
To my friend's point, we can reminisce about those days and celebrate
them, but we can't do it at the same time we observe the very limited
deadlines that we have now trying to get work done.
It was back on August 24 that the Rules Committee created a deadline
and said: We want to have every Member have their voice heard. We want
to hear from every single Member on every single appropriations bill to
understand what it is you would do differently to have the bills serve
America better.
We created that deadline, Mr. Speaker, for exactly the reason my
friend from New York suggested, and that is so folks would have the
time to look at those amendments, to digest those amendments, to be
thoughtful about those amendments.
Now, it turns out even in a body of 435 Members, you can have some
repetitive ideas. It turns out a lot of us think a single amendment is
a good idea. The Rules Committee looked at amendments and found
multiple Members had exactly the same idea. In order to speed the
process along, we let one of those Members offer the amendment; we
asked the other Members not to.
That is not closing down the process. That is a good use of the
American people's time, because we have so much that we must get done
together.
Mr. Speaker, for folks who care about openness--and I am one of those
Members--I just want to remind you that it is not just the 1,000-plus
amendments we looked at in the Rules Committee. It is thousands upon
thousands that were worked through the Appropriations Subcommittee
process, and then the Appropriations full committee process.
{time} 1300
The appropriations process is one of the best opportunities for any
Member
[[Page H7108]]
in this Chamber to make their priorities known, act on those
priorities, change the law of the land for the men and women they serve
back home. Every single Member of this Chamber knows of that process,
avails themselves of that process, and if we pass this rule, we will
make several hundred more amendments in order and complete this process
for the first time since 2009.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Rosen).
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted by House Republicans'
continued efforts to end DACA and help this heartless administration
tear families apart. Yesterday, House Republicans had a chance to
rectify the Trump Administration's despicable decision to betray
DREAMers in Nevada and across this country.
Instead, they chose to block the immediate consideration of the
bipartisan Dream Act. And then last night, House Republicans in the
Rules Committee doubled down on this President's cowardly assault on
DREAMers by blocking an amendment that I helped file with my colleagues
Julia Brownley and Luis Correa.
That would have prohibited funds from being used to deport DACA
recipients. In Nevada, DACA has allowed more than 13,000 young people
to come forward, pass background checks, and live and work legally.
These young men and women who are brought here as children are
patriotic and brave. They include college students, members of our
military, and so many others who are contributing to our society.
They fear they will be taken from their homes and their families torn
apart. President Trump's decision to end DACA is an affront to
everything our Nation stands for and only cements his legacy of
shortsighted cruelty.
House Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves for helping this
administration push DREAMers one step closer to deportation. I will
continue to fight for our values, our principles, because as Americans,
we do not turn our backs on people who represent the best of our
Nation.
We must take the Dream Act up without delay.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Palmer). Members are reminded to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), one of our leaders from the great State
of California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for providing me
this time. I rise in opposition to this rule, which prohibits a vote of
the House of Representatives on an amendment that would prevent the
Department of Justice from using its power and resources to supersede
all State laws that have legalized the medical use of cannabis.
For 3 years, States have been shielded from having the will of their
voters and their people by a prohibition on the Department of Justice
that would prevent the Department of Justice from thwarting the will of
the people of the States by superceding those State laws when they have
determined in the States that the medical use of marijuana should be
permitted with their citizens.
The Rules Committee has, thus, been basically--it will be changing
the law of the land for 3 years where the 50 States have been
permitted, if they so chose, to have the medical use of marijuana.
After this vote, because of this rule, we have been prevented from
again providing that prohibition that passed this House on a number of
occasions that would prohibit the Department of Justice from
superceding State law. In short, a vote for this rule is anti-States'
rights. A vote for this rule is against permitting the people of your
State to legalize the medical use of marijuana if the Federal
Government, if the DOJ, decides.
A vote for this rule will, thus, prevent medical use of cannabis by
our doctors in States that would like to permit their people to benefit
from illegal use of medical marijuana. Instead, those doctors now will,
as they have been, prescribing opiates. That is right, opiates. Our
people have ended up being prescribed opiates because marijuana has not
been an option.
It is a vote to cut off our veterans, and our seniors with arthritis,
those people who have children who are plagued with seizures, all of
these things now are permitted in the States where they have legalized
the medical use of marijuana. These people are provided an avenue to at
least try this as a method of dealing with these horrible maladies that
they have to deal with in their lives, whether they are seizures, or
whether they are people who have arthritis, or whether they are our
veterans who are coming back.
We need to make sure that the billions of dollars that right now are
being invested in medical marijuana businesses and clinics throughout
our country, those billions of dollars will go to the benefit of our
people. Instead, this rule prevents us from standing in the way of the
Justice Department from obliterating those rights in the States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, so a vote against this rule is a vote
to permit those States to make that decision. The rule, as it is now,
prevents us from getting in the way of the Justice Department's
obliteration of these rights.
But one of the most important things, whether it is States' rights,
or whether it is trying to listen to the seniors who are begging for us
to give them some relief from some of their suffering and let them at
least try this if the doctors so prescribe, but let us just remember
this: that billions of dollars, $3 billion or $4 billion have been
invested in this industry to provide honest businessmen and doctors the
right to try medical marijuana on some of these maladies.
Those $3 billion will immediately be transferred to the drug cartels
in Mexico if this rule goes through. That is what it means. Now, I
would suggest that whether it is opiates, or the drug lords down in
Mexico, we need to side with the States' rights to make this
determination and decide--and to make our determination to let the
people decide in those States and let them have the choice there.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule for those reasons.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream
Act, this bipartisan, bicameral legislation. We have thousands of young
people who are Americans in every way except on paper.
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
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Carbajal) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, in the past 5 years, the DACA program has
given nearly 800,000 young men and women who came here as children, and
have only known the United States as their home, a shot at the American
Dream. It rightfully allowed them to come forward to live, work, and
learn in the United States legally, and without fear of deportation.
President Trump, this week, made his most heartless decision
yesterday by cruelly rescinding DACA protection for these young
DREAMers. These DREAMers now face the painful reality of a President
betraying their trust, forcing them back into the shadows, and kicking
them out of their homes.
These kids put their faith in our government to protect them. They
underwent rigorous background checks and paid the required fees, all
for an opportunity to better themselves and their communities. And we
are failing them.
I share a similar story as many of these DREAMers. I emigrated to the
United States with my parents as a 5-year-old boy from Mexico. This
great country since has given me the opportunity to work hard, raise my
two children, and serve my country in local
[[Page H7109]]
government, the military, and here in Congress.
Terminating DACA and stripping DREAMers of that same hope and
opportunity is unconscionable and incompatible with our American
values. We are a nation of immigrants and are made stronger by their
contributions. Following the President's shameful decision this week,
Congress must take action and pass the bipartisan Dream Act which would
provide a permanent legislative solution to allow DREAMers to remain in
the United States and continue to contribute to our Nation's future.
They are our neighbors, our children's classmates, our coworkers.
These are all hardworking and law-abiding individuals. We cannot afford
to abandon DACA recipients who have lived in America all of their lives
and contribute to this country in many ways.
Ending this program undermines our economic growth and
competitiveness, costing our economy $490 billion in lost GDP over the
next decade, in addition to losing potential innovation and
entrepreneurship.
This House has already passed the DREAM Act in 2010, and a majority
of Senators also supported this legislation. However, it fell short
with a filibuster from then-Senator Jeff Sessions, the same Attorney
General who announced the termination of DACA this week.
This Congress must now ensure the well-being and future of these
800,000 youth living and working in the United States. I urge my
colleagues to stand up for DREAMers by bringing H.R. 3440, the
bipartisan Dream Act, immediately to the floor for a vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that admonition. As my friends
all know, the truth is, the vote in the Senate was a bipartisan vote
against the consideration of that bill.
We are going to find a bipartisan solution to this difficult problem
and continuing to characterize this as a partisan issue does nothing
but harm to our shared cause.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs.
Roby), one of the great leaders of the big freshman class in 2010.
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Make America Secure and
Prosperous Appropriations Act, and I encourage my colleagues to support
this rule.
As a pro-life conservative, I have long fought to make sure that
taxpayers' dollars aren't being used to fund abortions or to fund
abortion providers. Whether it is in the Appropriations Committee or
here on the House floor, I have repeatedly made the cause for
increasing protections for life under the law. Those fights haven't
always been easy, and we haven't won every time. But Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased that the appropriations bill before us does contain important
pro-life provisions.
First, the bill states: ``None of the funds made available by this
act may be used to conduct or support research using human fetal tissue
if such tissue is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion.''
We all remember the 2015 scandal that revealed how Planned Parenthood
officials were systematically altering abortion procedures in order to
preserve the organs of babies to sell them to researchers. I said it at
that time, and you don't have to be staunchly pro-life like me to be
appalled by the thought of harvesting and trafficking aborted babies'
body parts for profit.
Our bill will prevent these atrocities from removing any incentives
abortion providers might have to harvest and sell babies' organs.
Instead, the bill directs agencies to find research using modern, more
efficient alternatives to human fetal tissue.
To be clear, I am a strong supporter of the National Institutes of
Health. Their research is critical for development of lifesaving
medical breakthroughs. However, I believe we must set a clear line of
distinction between what is acceptable and what is not.
Second, the bill expressly prohibits the Department of Health and
Human Services from steering Title X public health funding to abortion
providers. Of course, the Hyde amendment has long made it against the
law to actually pay for abortions with taxpayer dollars. But the Obama
administration had a bad habit of pushing hundreds of millions of
dollars to Planned Parenthood in forms of grants and reimbursements for
other services. This amounts to a pipeline of funding propping up the
Nation's largest abortion provider. It is an abuse of taxpayer money,
and I am pleased that this bill cuts it off.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my chairman, Tom Cole, for including these
important pro-life provisions in our base bill for the first time.
{time} 1315
It represents real progress for the pro-life movement, and I will
continue to fight to see it through the process.
Mr. Speaker, I am unapologetically pro-life, and I believe that every
human life is precious and our laws and policies should reflect that.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Appropriations
Committee.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank our ranking member for
yielding and, really, for her tireless advocacy on behalf of all
Americans.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill, the
so-called Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act.
Mr. Speaker, let's make one thing clear: this bill breaks
Republicans' promise to get back to regular order, while blocking the
majority of amendments to be considered on the floor. Also, as an
African-American woman, I can't help but see how these cuts impact
communities of color.
It may be easy to think of budgets in terms of dollar signs and
decimal points, but the disturbing truth is that the decisions we make
here affect lives. If we are honest, many of these decisions in this
bill disproportionately affect Black and Brown lives.
For instance, the bill eliminates the Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Initiative, the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Communities Health
Program--just eliminates it--and Title X family planning, which many
women of color and men rely on. It eliminates the Health and Career
Opportunities Program, which provides training and grants for health
careers for minority-serving institutions, and it eliminates the
Minority AIDS Initiative, just to name a few. These are just under the
Health and Human Services provision.
This bill cuts $3 billion from the Pell Grant Surplus Program, $190
million in 21st Century Community Schools, and eliminates the
comprehensive literacy program. All of these are critical education
programs that predominantly help people and students of color.
I am also disappointed that this bill divests in our workforce,
especially for communities of color, by eliminating the proven
apprenticeship programs and cutting millions of our Nation's job
training programs, including reintegration of ex-offenders--again,
majority African-American and Latino ex-offenders--reentering into
society. This budget cuts millions from that.
It refuses to make in order Congressman Bobby Scott's amendment to
strike the prohibition against using Federal funds for transportation
to desegregate public schools. We are talking, still, about
desegregating public schools in 2017.
What is worse, I offered an amendment in Rules to combat these
devastating cuts to communities of color, and Republicans refused to
make them in order. I offered an amendment that would have prohibited
funds from being used to implement the policy memo that Attorney
General Sessions has presented that rolls back the failed War on Drugs
and reinstates the harshest sentences for low-level drug offenses, the
majority of whom--guess what--are African Americans.
I offered another amendment that would have expressed the sense of
Congress that race-conscious admissions policies, which are designed to
achieve a more diverse student body, which allows for the use of race
as one factor, only one factor, in admissions--these policies, we have
to remember, are beneficial to all students. So the Department of
Justice should not take action to limit these benefits.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
[[Page H7110]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 16 minutes
remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California
an additional 1 minute.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding another
minute.
Mr. Speaker, we should not be trying to limit students of color
access to education, which the Justice Department is trying to do.
Affirmative action is critical to mitigating discriminatory practices
that prevent students of color from being admitted into the schools of
their choice. Attorney General Sessions needs to back off of this. I
tried to do this through an amendment to send that message. Of course,
that amendment was not made in order.
Congress can help, though, renew their faith in minority communities,
and the minority communities can renew their faith in Congress by not
accepting this Trump agenda and support clear policies that demonstrate
to people of color that our lives also matter in America.
Unfortunately, this spending bill does just the opposite.
So I hope the Members will understand the message that we are sending
to communities of color. I just mentioned a few of the cuts that have
been put into this bill. I hope that we work to rectify the problems
with it.
It is past time to get back to regular order. It is past time to move
each bill individually, also. It is past time to make strong
investments in the American people, which include people of color. It
is past time to help grow the economy and to create good-paying jobs
for everyone.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and
``no'' on the underlying bill. There is simply too much at stake.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the comments of my
friend from California. She is absolutely right. When Republicans took
control of this Chamber, they committed themselves to having a more
open process. I was a part of that freshman class that came in to give
Republicans a majority, and we have made good on that process. I want
to talk about that just for a little bit.
My friend from California serves on the Appropriations Committee, and
I thank her for her service, Mr. Speaker. When you want to talk about
an open process, that Appropriations Committee went through every
single bill one subcommittee at a time, hour after hour, day after day,
week after week, indeed, month after month. I am grateful to her for
that service. The bill would not be as good as it is but for the men
and women who serve on the Appropriations Committee.
But I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons I was
proud to be carrying the rule today is that we haven't gotten the
appropriations process completed on time since Democratic leadership
was able to achieve that back in 2009. They couldn't do it in their
last year in power, 2010. In fact, they didn't do the appropriations
bills at all. They punted it off to the next Republican Congress. But
in 2009 they did.
When I talk about that commitment to openness, let's remember, last
time we had this shared success together and my friends on the other
side of the aisle were leading, they allowed 17 amendments to the
Financial Services bill. We are allowing twice that many today.
When my friends were leading this institution the last time we
completed this process, they allowed 13 amendments to the Interior
bill. We are allowing six times that many.
When my friends on the other side of the aisle were leading this
institution, the last time we successfully completed this process, they
allowed five amendments to the Labor-HHS. We are allowing 10 times that
many.
When my friends on the other side of the aisle were leading this
institution, the last time we successfully completed this process on
time, they allowed zero amendments to the Commerce-Justice-Science
bill. We allow 49--infinitely more.
My friends, can we always do better together? We can. I am grateful
to my friends for the hard work they put in showing up day after day to
do that better. But this bill is better, and if we pass this rule, we
will move to the debate on this bill, and we will complete this process
on time in the most open fashion that any of my colleagues have seen in
decades.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I am really very fond of my colleague over there, and I appreciate
his wonderful sunshine attitude.
The fact is we have never seen anything like what we are going
through now. Twice, in just the last few months, one amendment by Ms.
Lee, to finally get an AUMF so that we could authorize the wars that
seem to be going on forever in the name of the United States of America
was voted on in committee, passed in committee, and should have been in
the bill. Lo and behold, it disappeared. I don't think we ever did
anything like that to my knowledge, and if we did, shame on us.
In this very bill today, there was, again, an amendment presented in
committee for the DACA people to be able to get jobs while they are
waiting with the Federal Government. I am paraphrasing that because I
never saw it, but that is my understanding of what that did. Once
again, it was presented at the committee, voted, passed, and should
have been in this bill. But before it got to Rules, just like Ms. Lee's
amendment, it just disappeared.
How can you run the Government of the United States by saying that
the people do their will through us? We are not sitting here to
represent ourselves and do what we want to do and take one from column
A and one from column B. We follow rules. That is what we are supposed
to do. We have to answer for that.
I want the people of the United States to know that what we are
talking about here today is probably not going anywhere. As far as we
know, it will not get past the Senate. Now, some miracle may happen.
Who knows? Or maybe the whole thing will disappear--I don't know--with
no explanation, by the way.
But we haven't really done anything here yet except what I would call
a crazy amalgamation of what the rules of the House wouldn't even come
close to allowing us to do. Any body, any Congress, any House of
Representatives, any legislature anywhere can do what they have to do
to get their budget ready if they throw it all in one mix and let one
committee, the Appropriations Committee, do it. The other committees
had no right to talk about it.
As I pointed out, again, the majority has really cut out the minority
completely. Do you think we knew before it got to Rules that those two
amendments that I talked about that were terribly important had
disappeared? We didn't know that until it was given to us.
Many times what we get at Rules are emergency meetings, which means
one thing: no committee action. We have decided we would like to do
this one this week, so let's call it an emergency.
Enough. Enough already. This is the premier legislative body in the
world. The hopes, the dreams, and the aspirations of all Americans lie
in this House. We do or we do not do what is in the best interests of
the people who sent us here. I promise you it is not in the best
interests to cut out all of the population of the United States--about
half, almost half. In fact, I believe numerically we got more votes
than the other side--just cut us out of the process.
I have already talked about no open rules. If you can't have an open
rule whereby you can talk about amendments, there is nothing else for
you to do. We are out of it because Democrats get very few amendments.
I don't think the Rules Committee people get hardly any at all, and
then we beg for some of the best ones we would like to be made into
order--never happens.
We are pretty discouraged. As a matter of fact, we were talking about
maybe we should stage a coup, but I know that is illegal and would not
work in the United States of America. So it was kind of a fleeting
thought brought about by pure frustration.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Scott had a wonderful amendment. He is the ranking
member on the Education and the Workforce Committee and is known
throughout the United States for the
[[Page H7111]]
work that he does, as is Barbara Lee, who is probably more well known
than almost any other Member of this House. To be treated that way, to
have to go back to her district and say, ``Well, we tried to do these
amendments''--enough already.
We can do it the right way. We used to. When I got here, it was
entirely different. The bipartisanship was strong. We all liked each
other. It was a pretty wonderful thing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott), whose amendments should have been allowed.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the number of amendments that were made in
order by the Rules Committee, but I am appalled that the majority chose
not to include one of my amendments, No. 63, to division F of H.R.
3354, which would strike a prohibition against using Federal funds for
the purpose of transportation needed to desegregate public schools.
This language has found its way into every appropriations act since at
least 1974.
The language in sections 301 and 302 of division F of the bill really
represent a relic of an ugly history when States and school districts
across the Nation resisted meaningful integration of public education
for decades after the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of
Education. That resistance has worked.
According to the GAO last year, our schools are more segregated by
race and class today than they were in 1968. The persistence of these
riders, if unchallenged, is morally reprehensible and has no place in
2017. I stand with the Congressional Black Caucus in calling for a
total removal of this offensive language in any fiscal 2018
appropriations act.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have a long and proud history in this House, but it is sometimes
tough to remember exactly how that history goes, Mr. Speaker.
{time} 1330
My friend from New York has her picture up on the wall in the Rules
Committee room. If you haven't been up there, Mr. Speaker, you should
go see it.
My friend from New York is the first woman to have ever led the
United States House of Representatives Rules Committee. She led it ably
and proudly for the 4 years that the Democrats were in the majority the
last decade.
It is a hard job because, as the chairman of the Rules Committee or
the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, you have to make decisions. When
the bills come to you from the committees of jurisdiction--the
authorizing committees--you often have to completely reorganize those
bills. You have to meld those bills together. It is a powerful
committee because it has a solemn responsibility.
Yes, in the area of Rules Committee jurisdiction and the melding of
all of those pieces of legislation is what amendments get added and
what amendments get taken away.
My friend from California (Ms. Lee), has an absolutely legitimate
gripe, as does my friend from Virginia (Mr. Scott). Mr. Speaker, we all
think our amendments are the greatest amendments to be known.
Mr. Scott led, to his credit, with saying: I am glad so many of my
amendments were made in order, but I am appalled my one amendment was
kept out.
We all want all of our amendments in. But to my friend from New
York's comment that Democrats don't get a fair shake, I will remind
you, Mr. Speaker, when my friend was leading the committee, the entire
House of Representatives was offered 139 chances to change the
appropriations bill in 2009, the last time we completed it.
With Paul Ryan leading the institution, with my friend from Texas,
Pete Sessions, leading the Rules Committee, we made 214 Democratic
amendments in order. We have made more minority amendments in order in
this process than my friends on the other side made in order for the
entire House.
Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to fear from openness. We have nothing
to fear from a robust debate. I am so glad that we have had a chance to
do that. But history should be reported accurately. The accuracy is: we
can always do better. But we are doing better today than we were just a
few short years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are really getting somewhere here. What my colleague
failed to say is, as far as I know and I imagine as far as he knows,
that no committee has ever sent a bill to the Rules Committee
completely taking away amendments that had passed in that committee and
were legitimately a part of that bill.
In just the last, let's say, 2 or 3 months, two amendments
legitimately passed by Democratic members in the proper committee
disappeared between that committee and the Rules Committee. If that is
not a violation of rules, I don't know how in the world you would ever
describe it.
Sure, we had a lot of open rules--I mentioned Paul Ryan has never had
one--which gave everybody an opportunity to do an amendment, all 435
us, if we chose to, but we don't. When you talk about something coming
to us from a committee, large bills sometimes don't come to us from
committees, but oftentimes they are written somewhere--we are not sure
where--but they come to us in an emergency procedure because they have
to get to the floor that week.
I am not just talking about improving. I am talking about following
the rules of procedure laid down by history, by circumstance, and by
geniuses. I am talking about not appropriating those in ways that say:
We just don't want that amendment on the list. Pretend it never
happened. Throw it in the garbage and maybe nobody will remember it.
We remember. We think that some amendments are a few things that
would really move the country forward, and we don't have a chance to
get them put in place simply because we are the minority. That is
absolutely wrong. It is undemocratic. It is hurtful to the institution
and hurtful to America.
We can do better. You and I should pledge right now to work on that.
I am game if you are.
Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. I will say to my friend that I have no better days than
the days that you and I are working together. I absolutely look forward
to that.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Reclaiming my time, I don't want to see that anymore.
It is an embarrassment when I have to even get up to do my half of the
rule and talk about what awful things have happened to us. There are
more things that I need to talk about than that.
I think we should cut out the games and the cuteness and all the rest
of it and do our job.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Richmond).
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today, as a Member of the
United States House of Representatives, embarrassed. At the same time
that I am embarrassed, I am also dumbfounded.
I know that there are people at home that are thinking: Why would a
Member of Congress, the most prestigious body in the world, be
embarrassed, dumbfounded?
Well, I was always taught that if you show me your budget or if you
show me your legislation, then you are showing me your values.
Representative Scott, my good friend from Virginia, had an amendment
that would strike the prohibition that Federal funds could be used to
desegregate our public schools in this country.
If you look at the GAO study, there are more schools now that are
desegregated than in 1968. We can talk eloquently about the history of
the House and what the Democrats did when they were in control and how
many amendments were made in order. I am not talking about how many
amendments. I am talking about a specifi amendment, a specific issue.
We are perpetuating segregation in the United States of America in
our
[[Page H7112]]
public schools. We are not allowing the States to use funds to promote
integration and diversity among our schools.
My State--and I will own this--is still the only State under a
Federal desegregation order, because we have not completely
desegregated our schools. We still have that ugly history.
With everything going on in this country and school kids probably
huddled around a TV right now watching this institution work and they
are saying: These are our leaders? We elected them to run this country?
Why wouldn't they want me to go to school with other kids of other
races?
That is why I am embarrassed. It is wrong. I don't think we should
just hide behind procedure, but address the issue and the moral failure
and the message that we are sending to our children.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from New York that
I do not have other speakers remaining, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
These bills don't have the support they need to pass the Senate. It
takes 60 votes to even bring them to the floor. That means that this
entire exercise this week has been an exercise in futility. All the
while, the clock is ticking and Congress has so much to do, as I have
elaborated several times this afternoon, over the next 9 legislative
days.
If this process has been good for anything, it is revealing just how
broken the legislative process has become under the majority's rule.
Legislation regularly comes to the House floor without any committee
consideration. It just goes to rules. The majority even rammed through
a healthcare repeal bill not long ago--I am sure everybody remembers
that--that would impact one-sixth of our entire economy without first--
what we need to do again in regular order--getting a score from the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
They are very important. They tell us what cost and what impact it
would have on the budget and on the country. So that means we had no
idea of the impact of that bill on our markets or what it would cost
when voting for it.
The minority is routinely shut out of the process, often unable to
get so much as a vote on an amendment on the House floor. When Speaker
Ryan assumed the gavel, he promised to return to regular order and an
open process. We have been waiting a mighty long time. Every time we
offered an amendment to the bill before us in the Rules Committee, we
asked that the rule be open; again, giving all Members a chance to
affect that bill. Unanimously, we are voted against and we lose all
those votes 9-4. That means that both sides will not be able to affect
that bill and it means that regular order is as far away as it ever
was.
Here we are, less than a month away from the end of the fiscal year,
and we haven't passed a budget resolution through the House. We were
supposed to have a budget through the House, the Senate, and the
conference--the conference is necessary to reconcile the House and
Senate bills--by April 15.
We blew through the debt limit in March and still have not dealt with
that. We have yet to have a single open rule in the Rules Committee
under the Speaker's leadership. Believe me, I am sure that an awful lot
of Members of this House have something to say about what is going on.
It is no wonder that, according to the latest figures from Gallup, 79
percent of the public disapproves of how Congress is doing its job. No
wonder.
CBS News highlighted that it costs the taxpayers an estimated $24
million a week to operate the House of Representatives. They know that
they are not getting their money's worth.
They needed 60 votes to repeal and replace healthcare, when there was
no replacement in sight. I am not sure how to describe that as a
legislative proposal, but what it sounds like to me is a hoax. We are
going to fool you that we have really got a replacement here.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule,
and the bill. I hope that my good colleague, Mr. Woodall, and I can
help fix this place to do a little better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I don't dispute the polling numbers my friend from New
York cites. In fact, I am as saddened by those numbers, as she is. But
I also feel culpable; not culpable because of the work we are doing
today--I think we should be proud--I feel culpable because we all find
ourselves in conversations with one another where, instead of building
the institution up, we run the institution down.
What my friend from New York said about Ms. Lee's amendment being
changed in the Rules Committee, she is absolutely right, the amendment
was changed. But, Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: it wasn't changed in
some backroom deal with smoke-filled air where no one knows what is
happening and can't read the bill. It was noticed. There was an entire
paragraph dedicated to saying: Hey, this is unusual. This doesn't
happen that often. We want all the cards on the table so everybody
knows. Just understand we made this change this time around.
Mr. Speaker, getting the work done in this institution is hard. It
leads to conflicting goals. You heard folks from the other side of the
aisle say: We are not spending nearly enough time on this bill. We need
to make even more amendments in order. And you heard folks on other
side of the aisle say: This whole bill is an exercise in futility. I
don't know why we are wasting even one moment on it.
It is tough to satisfy both of those concerns simultaneously.
We have got this rule book called the United State Constitution. It
doesn't ask a whole lot of the United States Congress. It does ask us
to appropriate the money. Under the leadership of both parties, Mr.
Speaker, this House has failed to get that done on time year after
year.
This year, the bipartisan Appropriations Committee in subcommittee,
in full committee, worked tirelessly, as I said, not for days, not for
weeks, but for months. One bill at a time. In fact, one line at a time.
That product was brought together by the Rules Committee last month,
August 16, Mr. Speaker. That amalgamation of bills was posted on the
internet for all the world to see and read. Every Member of this
Congress had a chance to bring their ideas about how to make it better.
The Rules Committee got together, looked at those ideas, made more of
those ideas in order for debate than we have seen in decades for bills
that get completed on time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. The Rules Committee did not get together. The majority
of the Rules Committee got together. We had no action in that game
whatsoever.
{time} 1345
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am always compelled to yield to my friend
from New York because I am so fond of her and because her leadership
has meant so much to this institution.
My friend has served on the Rules Committee for even longer than I
have, and so my friend understands how the Rules Committee works even
better than I do.
I don't want to engage my friend in a colloquy, at least not in my
closing statement. We should have this conversation on day 1. Please,
my friend from New York, give us one more word.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, just to speak on accuracy: don't say the
Rules Committee got together and went over those. Say the Rules
Committee majority got together and went over those. You know, that is
all I ask.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend's constructive counsel,
but I know for a fact that her calendar looks just like mine does, and
that means that we are going in in the early afternoon and we are not
getting out till late at night.
Why? Because you and I are sitting just three Members apart listening
to Member after Member make their case, and in the spirit of accuracy,
don't let it be said that our Members coming and testifying doesn't
make a difference because it does. You and I both believe that. We know
it to be true, and it is important that it be true.
Those Members come and they testify, they make their case, and then
we vote up or down on those amendments.
[[Page H7113]]
Mr. Speaker, can we do better? We can. And I will work with
absolutely any colleague of any political stripe of any region to do
better at any time, but let's do recognize that we made a commitment to
ourselves to get this job done for the first time in a decade.
By coming to the floor right now, Mr. Speaker, quarter of 2 on a
Thursday afternoon passing this rule, we are going to get this job done
together for the first time in a long time.
Will we wake up tomorrow and try to do better? You know that we will.
Should we take a moment to thank the folks who helped us get here? You
know that we should.
Mr. Speaker, you are surrounded left and right by Members of the
House team. The parliamentarians worked tirelessly to approve the
amendments, to make sure they are all written and drafted properly. I
want to thank the parliamentarian team for the work that they do.
Mr. Speaker, we kick CBO a lot in this place because we don't like
their score one day, we like it the next. CBO has to go through these
amendments, score these amendments. I am grateful to them for the work
they did to make this possible.
Legislative counsel goes through, with each Member of Congress,
making sure that every ``i'' is in the right place, every ``t'' is
crossed. It is not a small task. It is a gargantuan task, and they do
it on these big bills day in and day out. I am grateful for that.
You are starting to see some of the appropriators come down, Mr.
Speaker. Long after my friend from New York and I have left this
Chamber, the appropriations team is going to be here until the wee
hours of the morning once again going through each and every line and
each and every amendment.
I think about what my friend from Louisiana said about the school
children who are turning on C-SPAN and watching this process. I don't
know what they think goes into making this happen, but what I know goes
into making this happen is a lot of hard work, staff work, Member work,
a lot of big hearts, and a lot of big brains sitting down together
hashing through these issues.
This rule is worth supporting. The underlying legislation is worth
supporting, Mr. Speaker, and I ask all of my colleagues to do exactly
that.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 504 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment
of status of certain individuals who are long-term United
States residents and who entered the United States as
children and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3440.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is ENTITLED to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5-minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 186, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 457]
YEAS--227
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
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
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
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
[[Page H7114]]
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)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
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
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--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
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
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.
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
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
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Bridenstine
Costa
Crist
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
DeGette
DeSantis
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Garrett
LaMalfa
Lowenthal
Posey
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Scalise
Tsongas
Wagner
Wasserman Schultz
Webster (FL)
{time} 1412
Ms. PINGREE changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ROKITA and Mrs. HARTZLER changed their 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. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 190, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 458]
YEAS--222
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
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
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
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
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
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roskam
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
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
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--190
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
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
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
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rohrabacher
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
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--21
Bridenstine
Costa
Crist
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
DeGette
DeSantis
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Garrett
LaMalfa
Meadows
Pelosi
Posey
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Scalise
Tsongas
Wagner
Wasserman Schultz
Webster (FL)
[[Page H7115]]
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining.
{time} 1422
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.
____________________