[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 27, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7540-H7547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3823, DISASTER TAX RELIEF AND
AIRPORT AND AIRWAY EXTENSION ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 538 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 538
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House, without intervention of
any question of consideration, the bill (H.R. 3823) to amend
title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for
the airport improvement program, to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure
authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to provide
disaster tax relief, and for other purposes. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means and 20 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of September 28, 2017, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), the ranking member, 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. SESSIONS. 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 Texas?
[[Page H7541]]
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and
the underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of H.R.
3823, the Disaster Tax Relief and Airport and Airway Extension Act of
2017.
Mr. Speaker, the whole world is aware of a series of storms that have
hit not only America's shores but those shores of so many of our
territories, including the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.
{time} 1530
A series of these hurricanes over the past few weeks has caused great
devastation in Texas, Florida, Georgia, Puerto Rico, and, of course,
again, the U.S. Virgin Islands. These are people who are American
citizens, and they are in these territories, and they are suffering
from loss and devastation, and we have never seen an occurrence like
this with two storms in succession.
While there remains much to be done and evaluated, this legislation
takes important steps, I believe, that are necessary to begin providing
relief to those individuals. We have had a lot of debate not only on
this floor and not only at the Rules Committee, but certainly in the
U.S. House of Representatives and the public media about what steps
need to be taken, who needs to be there first, what FEMA's
responsibility is, what the responsibility is for HUD, what the
responsibility is for States, and what the responsibility is for
citizens and their local communities. But the bottom line is that much
of the evaluation, the undertaking of saving of lives, trying to work
to save more property and to be there in support of people, is an
ongoing project that will take a long period of time.
Specifically, this underlying legislation helps to address five
targeted and meaningful tax provisions that provide relief and make it
easier for people to recover and to return to their homes and to make
long-term decisions from a money and tax perspective.
It will allow hurricane victims to keep more of their paychecks,
deduct more of the cost of their expensive property damage, and provide
more affordable and immediate access to retirement savings should
people decide that they would choose to go that direction at this
difficult time in their life.
This legislation also encourages more Americans--Americans who see
what is happening--and companies to be able to donate, to donate to
those who are in need by temporarily suspending limitations on the
deductions for charitable contributions for hurricane relief efforts
this year. This is an important step, and it removes obstacles that
might be in the way for the public to get involved and to help their
fellow citizens.
Taken together, these five tax provisions go a long way, we believe,
in helping these people recover from these storms.
The rule also makes clarifications to ensure Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands are treated equitably in all tax sections of this bill.
I spent time this week speaking with the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico
(Miss Gonzalez-Colon) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms.
Plaskett) in talking about not only their immediate needs, but also the
long-term needs. Both were vigorous in not only their request for help,
but also, equally, I think, balanced in their request for the
legislation that would take place today.
They represent so many hardworking people, people who are proud
people in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, and they are looking for
a way to work through not only where they are, but, in looking forward
over the long term, about how they are going to put their islands back
together.
I have had many phone conversations with both of them over the last
48 hours. They have asked for our prayers, they have asked for our
help, and I have pledged to do both. But I told them that I believe
this House of Representatives would very carefully understand their
special request at this time because the islands are under increased
pressure simply to get planes that would land to allow not only the
bringing in of emergency supplies, but also taking out people who would
need to come ashore, for those that might be children, elderly people,
or the sick.
In addition to the tax provisions of H.R. 3823, which addresses some
of the frailties of the Flood Insurance Program, we have included
important reform pieces that are pro-consumer and increase competition
at a very difficult time now that these hurricanes have landed on our
shores. This provides options for all Americans.
The language that passed out of the Financial Services Committee 58-0
and on the floor of the House last year 419-0 has now been placed in
this bill, also. We believe it is another example of bipartisan
support, not only by the gentleman from the Financial Services
Committee, Jeb Hensarling, but also his ranking member, Maxine Waters,
who very carefully, last year, in preparation probably for what would
lie ahead in the future, to provide a free market opportunity for more
people to receive flood insurance. It is part of this package. It
passed here last year 419-0. It is an integral part of what might be an
answer maybe only for a few people, but it is an option and an
opportunity, and I appreciate Chairman Hensarling and Maxine Waters for
being a part of passing that last year out of the Financial Services
Committee 58-0.
This bill also reauthorizes the FAA, the Federal Aviation
Administration, for 6 months, their funding levels, which would, I
believe, be most important to all areas of the country. This is a
bipartisan bill.
This is an opportunity for people who live in rural areas and people
who live in urban areas to note that the FAA, day in and day out, 24
hours a day, is a vital part of the important transportation component
of landing planes, bringing people to and from work and back safely. It
also is a part of our families who travel the system, and the Federal
Aviation Administration, the FAA, needs this money and needs the
operational capacity to move forward.
It also comes at a critical time when the radar system that is in
Puerto Rico has failed, and it is necessary that we continue to fund
the programs at the FAA so that they can get these systems back up and
online to increase traffic to meet the needs of the islands and to make
sure that this is done safely.
Now is not a time to play games with an essential program, and I
believe that this is very important for each of the Members to
understand. This is a vital part of this package.
Finally, the underlying legislation extends several expiring health
programs that would be finishing at the end of the year, including the
Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education program and the
Special Diabetes Program for Native Americans.
I do want to note that this package is focused on health programs
that are expiring, and Chairman Greg Walden from Hood River, Oregon,
who is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has every
intent to make sure that he will move legislation extending funding for
CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, because we know that it
expires soon. The chairman has looked into this and certified back to
me that the money that is necessary to keep this program going is not
in jeopardy and that he looks forward to a time when he can move CHIP
not only to where it is considered on the floor, but to the Rules
Committee, where it can be equally and fairly debated.
Before concluding my opening statements, I just want to affirm to the
people in my home State of Texas and other areas affected by these
disasters that this is the second of a series of responses to these
natural disasters. On September 8, this body, the United States House
of Representatives, passed initial emergency response legislation,
providing $15.3 billion in aid.
To provide some historical context, in 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit
the United States in August, followed by Hurricanes Rita and Wilma in
September and October. The House responded by passing an initial
response in September to provide immediate emergency relief; then,
after some evaluation, determined the actual needs on the ground, that
is, by an analysis that took place, and that is when the House passed a
more comprehensive package that included many of the provisions that
are in here that we are doing, but they did that in December.
There was some debate yesterday at the Rules Committee about the
timing,
[[Page H7542]]
about delay, and I assured the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
who is a distinguished member of our committee, that, while I did not
know the exact timing or delay, what might be a delay in that timing,
that I believe that that is forthcoming; that, as there is a broader
evaluation, as time moves on, as we go from saving people, trying to do
recovery, to where we then move to the next phases of this opportunity,
we will then know more specifically the needs of programs, the work
that needs to be done by this Congress, and the help that we can
provide to these areas.
I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) not only
for his vigorous, what I believe, support of making sure that people--
albeit they might be in Florida, but where they were a part of these
storms, I felt Mr. Hastings' care and concern for them, to make sure
that what the House of Representatives did was well managed, and I
appreciate his feedback.
This body has every intention of providing further relief to our
fellow Americans. We also understand that the Federal Government, while
it has responsibilities, it does so by working with the States. It is
done through FEMA.
I have been personally very pleased not only with the actions of
President Trump and this administration, but I want to add that I am
proud of the House of Representatives. I believe the leadership that
Paul Ryan has provided not only by being on the ground and looking at
these areas, but also staying up to date on a day-to-day basis means
that the House is nimble and able to move forward as we need to.
What we are talking about today is targeted tax relief for those in
need, ensuring the FAA can continue its functions allowing planes to
land in Puerto Rico, and continuing our emergency responses.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, extending the Federal Aviation Administration's
authority is traditionally something that gets bipartisan support. That
hasn't been the case this time, as we saw on Monday when a prior
version of this bill failed on suspension. It contained several
extraneous provisions, but it didn't include some of the most important
priorities that we face.
September 30 is nearly upon us. That is the deadline to reauthorize
programs that the American people depend on. That includes things like
the Perkins student loan program, which helps low-income students to
finance their education.
There are 500,000 students across the country, including nearly
50,000 from New York, relying on it right now, but the Perkins Loan
Program isn't anywhere in this bill.
The bill also does nothing to extend the Children's Health Insurance
Program created in 1997 with broad bipartisan support. More than 9
million children get their health insurance through this program.
Without continued Federal funding, States are going to begin running
out of money to take care of some of the most vulnerable kids, and they
can't wait until the end of the year for us to act.
Community health centers have also been left out of the bill, and
they have told us that they will have problems from day one. If we
don't extend their funding, an estimated 9 million people would lose
access to healthcare.
These are essential bipartisan programs, Mr. Speaker, and what does
it say about the majority's leadership if they are not extended by the
deadline? It does not bode well for our ability to fund the government
later this year, to raise the debt ceiling, extend the Flood Insurance
Program, or reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
This bill is an incredibly important one. No one in this Chamber or
anywhere that I know of in the world wants the FAA program stopped and
their employees furloughed or airport projects brought to a halt. We
should work together and get it right.
This package, however, has not been negotiated on a bipartisan basis.
It didn't go through regular order. Committees have been shut out of
the process, and Democrats, who represent half the population in the
United States, didn't get a say.
We are all glad to see provisions included here to provide some tax
relief for victims of the recent hurricanes. With regular order and a
more open process, this could be a more comprehensive package of
extenders that provide more tax relief for victims to recover and to
rebuild. After all, the Democrats did suggest 21 bipartisan tax
provisions which were included in previous relief legislation after
previous disasters.
{time} 1545
But none of those, except five, I think, are included in this bill.
That is a shame.
We have said it before. This is, I think, the 44th closed rule this
session, and that is just about all the bills we have done. This bill
could either have been bipartisan extending the FAA authorization, or a
comprehensive package of extenders that provided the tax relief
necessary for hurricane victims to recover and rebuild. The bill before
us is neither. I doubt many of us have had time to review the changes
that were made last night.
I have often said that a bad process leads to a bad product, and, Mr.
Speaker, I am afraid that is what we see with this bill. Another
opportunity for bipartisanship has been turned into another political
fight.
I, regretfully, reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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 would help 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 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, while my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle press forward with their partisan gimmicks, 800,000 young
people are still holding their breath. With time quickly running out,
they are wondering what their futures look like without DACA.
Will they lose their jobs? Will they have to drop out of college
after they have already paid tuition? Will they live in fear that ICE
will be waiting for them at any corner?
All these fears could be eliminated if Republican leadership allowed
a vote on the bicameral, bipartisan Dream Act. Instead of living in
fear or losing their job, the Dream Act would allow them to continue
working and add $22.7 billion annually to our U.S. GDP. Passing the
Dream Act will help our country reach the goal of 3 percent economic
growth.
The Dream Act would allow them to continue improving themselves and
their education. In the process, they would add $728 billion
cumulatively to our economy over a decade, due to an ``education
bump.'' The Dream Act would allow current teachers, nurses, soldiers,
engineers, high school and college students, and hundreds of thousands
of others to continue contributing to our economy and our country.
I call on my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and,
instead, bring the Dream Act forward for a vote. We have the votes, and
the urgency of passing the Dream Act is real.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the honorable and
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), my friend.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, this bill has fundamental
problems. Number one, the flood insurance provisions that are in this
legislation are provisions that are related to flood insurance. The
current program expires on December 9.
Why are we dealing with this one component right now?
I agree that this bill passed the House unanimously previously, but
it has fundamental problems advancing in a vacuum outside of the larger
reform. And mark my words: this provision is going to result in the
insolvency
[[Page H7543]]
of the Flood Insurance Program much faster. It is going to increase the
debt of the United States. Watch. I promise this is going to happen,
and I am looking forward to talking about this more later.
Number two, Mr. Speaker, explain to me the difference between a flood
victim in Texas, a flood victim perhaps in Florida, and one in
Louisiana. Explain to me how those are any different.
We had a 1,000-year flood in my community just last year. We
introduced legislation to provide this same tax relief to our citizens.
Why are Texans better?
I don't understand that.
Now, look, I want to be clear. I think that Texas deserves--the
hurricane victims absolutely deserve tax relief, there is no question,
as do the victims in Florida, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere--the victims
of Harvey, Irma, and Maria. But I don't understand this discrimination,
and I certainly can't go back home and explain it or defend it.
This is absurd. It is absolutely absurd that we have been waiting for
13 months for this exact same tax relief, yet the victims of the other
hurricanes get it within weeks. I would love for somebody to explain or
justify that to me. You can't do it.
Mr. Speaker, look, I will say it again. The FAA absolutely needs to
be extended. If this Ross-Castor bill was so great, after it passed the
House unanimously, the Senate would have taken it up; but they didn't
because it shouldn't be done in a vacuum. It needs to be part of the
larger reauthorization that expires on December 9, where we can
incorporate it into there.
The reason this is being done is because it is trying to artificially
increase National Flood Insurance Program rates. It is trying to
artificially expedite the insolvency of the program.
Think about this for just a minute. We are getting ready to have one
of the greatest demands upon the National Flood Insurance Program for
claims from Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, yet we are diverting
the revenue stream.
Why in the world would you do that? Where is the money going to come
from to pay the claims from people who flooded?
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just want to say that there are some
things in here that matter. The FAA needs to be extended. We need to
provide disaster tax relief without question.
This is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. We should be
sending a clean FAA extension to the Senate and address these other
things elsewhere.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I think the previous speaker made a very
important statement, that we should treat all Americans alike.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, the President's decision to rescind
DACA has brought fear to hundreds of thousands of DREAMers and their
families.
They are DREAMers like Saul Jimenez, who teaches special needs
students in Los Angeles, and is just one example of how DREAMers
contribute and add value to our country and our communities.
DREAMers are American in every way except for their immigration
status. To send DREAMers to a country they have never known would be
tragic for them and our Nation, which will lose their valuable
contributions.
The American people overwhelmingly oppose deporting our DREAMers, and
our faith-based community and business leaders are imploring Congress
to pass the Dream Act. Yet the Republican leadership is ignoring their
wishes and refusing to allow us a vote on this bipartisan, bicameral
bill.
To my Republican colleagues who say they want to protect our Nation's
DREAMers: If that is true, this is your chance. Vote ``no'' on the
previous question so we can vote on the Dream Act and put our DREAMers
on the road to the security and future they have earned in the only
country they know, the United States of America. The time to pass the
Dream Act is now. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Barragan).
Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because there are nearly a
million young men and women known as DREAMers who are depending on
Congress to take action to protect them so they are not deported.
DREAMers were brought to this country as children. Many barely
remember their birth country. They are our teachers, our nurses, and
our doctors. They are our neighbors, our friends, and for some of us,
like me, they are our family.
They also contribute to our economy. The Los Angeles Area Chamber of
Commerce estimates that DREAMers in Los Angeles County alone contribute
$5.5 billion annually to California's economy. Across the country,
DREAMers would add billions to GDP over the next decade.
Americans overwhelmingly want Congress to take action, and the vast
majority of Members would support legislation to protect DREAMers.
Let's not wait another moment. Let's bring the Dream Act to the floor
for a vote so that we can protect these young men and women. I urge a
``no'' vote on the previous question so we can bring the Dream Act to
the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentlewoman, my
colleague, that I have one more speaker left, so she may run down the
time as she chooses.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this Chamber must act to protect DREAMers
now in limbo because of President Trump's decision to end the DACA
program.
DACA recipients are rigorously vetted. They are high-contributing
young people who were brought to this country as children. They are
cherished members of communities across the country, and they are as
American as any of us in all but their paperwork.
President Trump's decision to end the program means that these
inspiring young people stand to lose their futures. Soon they will be
forced out of work and school, faced with the specter of deportation to
nations many of them have no memory of. The President has created a
moral emergency for our country.
This House must allow a vote on a clean Dream Act. It is a bipartisan
bill that gives these young people a real opportunity to get right with
the law and earn a path to legal permanent residence.
We all know that if this bill were put on the floor, it would pass.
The bill deserves a vote. There is no doubt about the public support.
Recent polls from CNN and ABC show that 82 to 86 percent of the
American public supports Dream Act-type legislation; 82 to 86 percent.
There is almost no issue we work on that has that much support from the
American public.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with an urgent plea to my
Republican colleagues. Not included in this legislation are the
Children's Health Insurance Program, Community Health Centers, and
Teaching Health Centers, whose authorization expires on September 30,
this Saturday, after this House adjourns.
They have known for 2 years about this date, yet, with no time left,
the Republicans spent precious hours today debating among themselves a
plan to cut taxes for the richest of Americans.
Nine million children rely on CHIP for their healthcare. Twenty-three
million Americans rely on Community Health Centers. That is 1 in 15
Americans, and they rely on the doctors that are trained at those
centers.
If making sure that every child in America has access to healthcare,
if that is not a priority, what is?
This is a real crisis that still can be averted in just a few minutes
of time now and not later. Families are waiting anxiously while their
health security is hanging in the balance. It is time to vote now
before it is too late.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the distinguished gentlewoman bringing this up. Perhaps,
Mr. Speaker, she was not in the body on the floor earlier when I
brought up
[[Page H7544]]
what I believe is an answer to this CHIP--Children's Health Insurance
Program--reauthorization.
I talked specifically with the chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, Greg Walden, who is very excited about the opportunity to
move the CHIP bill. The opportunity to do this is not dire or urgent.
As a matter of fact, there is money in the bucket right now to fund, as
it has been, the program to continue.
Chairman Walden indicated that, while he does understand that the
program is scheduled to run through September 30, that the analysis
from the nonpartisan Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission
shows that States have enough funds remaining in their accounts through
the end of this year.
{time} 1600
Chairman Walden is interested in looking at it again and gaining
information about it to see what sorts of changes, additions, or
updates that we choose to do. He intends to do that in and through the
committee providing information on a bipartisan basis. I trust not only
what Greg Walden said, but I also know of his desire to deal
effectively in this manner.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for bringing up this
important question, and I want to provide a timely answer to her, and I
appreciate her very much.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to
my friend.
I appreciate the information that the gentleman just gave us. We have
been told the community health service will be in trouble from day one.
Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the gentleman whether he has the same kind
of information about them?
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, responding to the gentlewoman, I do not,
but I will talk to Chairman Walden immediately, and I will come and
find you during the vote, or as we end here, and I will let you know.
I appreciate, once again, Mr. Speaker, that the gentlewoman is very
concerned, as is her committee, about children's programs, women's
programs, and she would expect me to respond accordingly, and I will
talk to Chairman Walden and get back to her with an answer.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that
because millions of people use the community health services, and the
children, we cannot let them go unattended.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, it has been 3 weeks since
President Trump announced he would be ending DACA; 3 weeks of fear in
homes, classrooms, and offices where DREAMers wonder if they still have
a future here in the only home they have ever known; 3 weeks for
Congress to answer President Trump's request for a bill that would stop
him from executing his own cruel order.
Here is that bill. Members from both parties have said they want to
do something to protect DREAMers. Here is that something. Over 80
percent of Americans believe DREAMers who live, work, contribute, and
follow the law should stay here. Here is our chance to show we are
listening.
We must pass the Dream Act because of people like Jose Antonio
Vargas, an immigrant from the Philippines, who never knew he was
undocumented until he applied for his learner's permit. But being
undocumented didn't stop his pursuit of the American Dream. He worked
hard and became a journalist, ultimately winning the Pulitzer Prize for
his articles.
Let's act to bring DREAMers like Jose out of the shadows. Let act to
encourage more to achieve what he did. Let's right this wrong, stop the
cruel end of DACA, and finally pass the Dream Act today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mitchell). Members are reminded to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is full of provisions that could pass in
regular order, and I am afraid of using the FAA reauthorization,
running out of time, again, because the planes can't fly if controllers
are not in the air.
The FAA bill contains a lot of important provisions that our
constituents are crying out for. Among them, airplane noise, which is
ruining communities across the United States. A study of the health
impact of that noise is as important as DACA, which we should pass, and
I think could pass. And there are other provisions which would pass on
regular order.
The FAA reauthorization bill is not the bill to fool around with. We
have had too many near misses by letting these short-term extensions
pile up on us. Pass a straight FAA reauthorization bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
New York for her leadership. I thank my fellow Texan on this effort.
I am not on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but I do
believe the FAA should have this extension. I do believe I should
advocate for the many employees and consumers of aviation needs, that
the air traffic controllers should not be privatized. And I understand
that this particular bill does not have that provision.
The focus should be on extending a number of these health matters
that are very important to us, and particularly, the inspiring health
programs dealing with the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical
Education Program, the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, and the
Medicare Intravenous Immune Globulin Demonstration project, a number of
these.
I do take concern with the diminishing of the Medicare Improvement
Fund by $50 million and, frankly, I believe that we should move forward
on these emergencies, particularly as it relates to hurricane victims
or areas.
Let me, however, focus on what is of devastating need in the areas of
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and make mention of the fact that
the U.S. Virgin Islands is included in these tax benefits, and Puerto
Rico, agreed to by the Members representing that area.
It is important that people do not have a penalty on their account
tax provisions. I hope this can move quickly through the Senate. The
employee retention credit for employees: the bill provides a tax credit
for 40 percent of wages, up to $6,000 per employee, paid by a disaster-
affected employer to an employee from a core disaster area.
Charitable deductions: the bill suspends limitations on charitable
contributions.
In our community, there are people who don't have the gap to survive.
They are working. Their job is closed down because of Hurricane Harvey.
I imagine in other areas they may be receiving charitable moneys. Those
who give the charitable contributions need to be helped.
The disaster-related personal casualty losses and the special rule
for determining the earned income tax credit is extremely important.
We want more. We are desperate, and we need more, Mr. Speaker. I hope
that we will be able to work together to get more for those who are
desperate from these hurricanes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
A good bit of the dialogue that is occurring today has been an active
discussion for a long period of time in the Financial Services
Committee--Jeb Hensarling from Dallas, Texas, the chairman of that
committee.
One of our bright young stars is from Tampa, Florida, and his name is
Dennis Ross. And Mr. Ross has heard the debate going on and came down
here. He has been an active part of not only understanding the needs of
communities, but, more importantly, how we are going to have a fix and
answer in a long-term way to look at this flooding problem and the
Federal flood program.
[[Page H7545]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Ross).
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, for over 50 years, the only game in town for
flood insurance has been the Federal Government through the National
Flood Insurance Program. That means that for over 50 years, if you want
flood insurance, your best bet is to go to the Federal Government,
which, by the way, especially after these two successive storms that
have just hit Texas and Florida, is going to be over $30 billion in
debt.
If we don't do something to save the taxpayers of this program that
cannot actuarially support itself, we are doing a total disservice to
our constituency and to our country. So what is part of the underlying
bill that this rule will allow is the Market Parity and Modernization
Act that will allow consumers to have a choice between the existing
Flood Insurance Program, which is significantly in debt, or to have the
private sector bring in their flood insurance programs to insure those
risks.
In Florida, back in 2004, we had successive hurricanes that came
through my district, and we had billions of dollars paid by FEMA, paid
by NFIP, but we had $39 billion paid by the private sector because we
had private windstorm insurance. The private sector does a much better
job of doing business and managing risks than the Federal Government.
What I am asking for this body to accept, what the American people
are craving for, is competition in the products they seek to have to
protect them with their valuable assets. It is kind of like the Flood
Insurance Program is a boat, and after 50 years of plugging holes, it
is taking on water more and more.
One of the suggestions is, let's just keep bailing. I submit to you
that to any logical person, the first step would be to plug that hole.
We are going to continue to bail. We need to continue to bail, but we
need to plug that hole so we don't get deeper and deeper in debt.
So the underlying bill, the FAA reauthorization, has the Ross-Castor
bill in there for a reason, so that we can invite a private market to
come to the rescue of those consumers out there who need to not only be
able to have options greater than what the National Flood Insurance
Program provides, because they don't provide business interruption.
They don't provide temporary housing, but the private sector will. More
importantly, the private sector will mitigate and will manage that
risk.
There is no mitigation program that is effective in the Federal
Government right now. It is a flowing of dollars to say: Here, do this;
or, do that.
Private risk management will help consumers mitigate, lessen their
risks, have more resilient homes.
What I am suggesting to you is that this is a paradigm shift for this
country. That if we are going to say that the business of the United
States should be left to business, and government should do what
government should do, then this is a move in that direction because
government should not be in the business of insurance. It is in the
business of relief.
There is no question about that, but relief is post-event help.
Insurance is pre-event. It is calculating that risk. It is managing
that risk. And that is what the private sector does so well. We owe it
to our consumers and we owe it to our taxpayers who are bailing out the
NFIP, that we give consumers this choice.
I would just submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we have a chance to
finally make a paradigm shift when we take the burden of bailouts off
the shoulders of taxpayers and allow those who do best what they do
best in managing capital and managing risk, do so for the benefit of
the consumers, that this underlying bill and the FAA reauthorization
allows for that.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the
previous speaker that my understanding is the fallback provision on
flood insurance came to the Federal Government because the private
insurers didn't want to do it.
If we can get them to take it over, I think everybody would be
relieved.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms.
Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say in the strongest
possible terms that this body must do what the majority of the American
people want and pass the Dream Act. The Dream Act is smart policy that
combines American values of compassion and humanity with what is best
for our economy and our society. This bill will protect 1.5 million
undocumented Americans from deportation.
Every day that we fail to act is another day that 800,000 DACAmented
young people live with an unshakable fear that they will lose their
ability to live without fear of deportation, be able to support
themselves and their families, to know that they can plan for the
future, whether that be attending school or buying a home, or a car, or
starting a new business.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, this bill will help all Americans
regardless of legal status. Nationally, the cruel end of this program
will cost $460 billion in GDP over the next 10 years; whereas passing
the Dream Act would actually bring $22 billion in income to our country
every year.
Mr. Speaker, this is about more than economics. It is about human
lives, and I urge my colleagues to do what is right. Pass the Dream
Act. Let's help these young people.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this discussion that we are having here on point that we
have now had two speakers from my side, Mr. Ross and Mr. Graves, who
have come down to talk about the debate that has been well alive across
the country, about how we deal with emergencies, how we deal with
flooding, how we deal with the opportunity for States, and communities,
and citizens, the free enterprise system, and what I would say FEMA, or
the Federal Government, to get closer in understanding the needs of
communities, and the answers to long-term decisions that take place.
What you heard Mr. Ross talk about was a bill that he worked on with
the gentlewoman, a Democratic colleague from Tampa, and they worked on
this piece of legislation, got it passed 58-0 out of the Financial
Services Committee, 419-0 on this vote. We need to pass--we need to
include this. We need to put this as part of the options, an option
that would be available for people back home, no matter where that is,
to have a chance to have more control of their own lives, to work in
their own communities.
{time} 1615
I really appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Ross, coming to talk to us
today. The hard work that he and Kathy Castor, the gentlewoman from
Tampa, did on a bipartisan basis comes to play. Even though they did it
a year ago, it would be in play today, and it will be in play 1 year
from now, when storms come back, as an option and opportunity. Instead
of us searching for answers, it would be one of the answers available.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Torres).
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, this is a country that was built on dreams.
Our country was founded to protect not just the right to life and
liberty but also to pursuit of happiness.
Sadly, the dreams of the thousands of young DREAMers who were brought
here as children have been put on hold by President Trump's decision to
end the DACA program and Congress' inaction to pass the Dream Act.
These young DREAMers have created a life for themselves here in the
U.S., and many know no other home other than the U.S.
Today, I want to tell you about one special DREAMer from my district.
Jose is an extremely intelligent young man. He works 6 days a week and
still finds time to volunteer in his community. His parents,
unfortunately, did not tell him that he was undocumented, in an effort
to protect him. He didn't find out about his status until it was time
to apply for college. He was extremely upset, but he didn't give up.
His dream is to go to college and study business. He has so much to
contribute to our country.
These young people have become part of the American quilt, a quilt
that reflects the diversity of our history, our
[[Page H7546]]
culture, and heritage of this great country. We can't just throw them
and toss them out of our Nation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
They say that success has many fathers, and you could say many
mothers. Success is, many times, in the eye of the beholder. But when
lots of people see it, they can get better prepared, and then people
see that as a model.
I would like to take just a minute, if I can, and talk about a model
of success that I use. Back home, I have an opportunity to meet with a
number of subject matter experts on issues and ideas. One of them is a
man named Bill Dewey. Bill Dewey is an air traffic controller at DFW
Airport in Dallas, Texas. Mr. Dewey and I take time to sit down and
understand the intricacies of his job, the FAA air traffic controller--
safety, planes.
DFW is home to American Airlines. Mr. Dewey handles traffic that goes
to Dallas Love Field, home for Southwest Airlines.
What Mr. Dewey has done with me is given me, from a working
professional relationship that he has as not only a former member of
the United States military as an air traffic controller but real live
in the tower at DFW Airport, day after day, seeing how important the
FAA is.
We should remember, Mr. Speaker, that it is not just money and time
that we are doing here. We are patting the employees of these agencies.
The FAA has so many dedicated employees--just like Bill Dewey, my dear
friend, who is at DFW Airport. This also is a support for those
employees to let them know that we are going to fund their programs and
we are going to take care of them. So we should, at the same time we do
that, say ``thank you'' to the men and women who are there 24 hours
around the clock to provide safety.
We have now been a number of years where we have not had a plane
crash with a fatality, and we are lucky. Part of it goes to the safety
of the system at the FAA.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, President Trump's decision to end DACA was
one of the most callous and cruel acts of his Presidency so far--and
that is saying something.
Mr. Speaker, ending the DACA program means betraying our Nation's
promise to protect 800,000 young people who are in America right now
and American in every way except on paper, including many thousands who
have served in the military. It means exposing them to deportation from
the only home they have ever known and robbing our Nation of their
exceptional talent, work ethic, and patriotism.
We cannot allow this President to play politics with so many young
lives. Congress must pass the Dream Act now and as soon as possible to
protect these outstanding young people, offer them the chance to become
citizens, and empower them to give back to the country they know and
love.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can end this
Republican obstructionism and bring this critical bill to the floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are, once again, reminded to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the President of the United
States.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what a shock it is to see the President
attacked when he is the one who is going to make sure, by challenging
Congress, that we get this issue done.
Mr. Speaker, there was a question the gentlewoman, my dear colleague,
Ms. Slaughter, asked. The question is timely and important, and I would
like to respond back to her. She asked about the health center program,
and the answer I have gotten back from the chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, Mr. Walden, the gentleman from Hood River, Oregon,
who is a phenomenal leader to this conference, is that it will not have
to access mandatory appropriations until early December, and that
Chairman Walden understands and appreciates that the gentlewoman, the
ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, has asked a
question, and he thanks you for asking that. He understands that we do
have a timing issue and is preparing quickly to address this issue. He
wanted me to thank the gentlewoman for bringing that up at this time.
I want to thank Chairman Walden for that message.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the chairman for giving me that answer, and I
yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this is our 44th closed rule for this session of
Congress which prevents Members from offering amendments to the floor.
This has put this Congress well on its way to becoming the most closed
Congress in modern history. Democrats have been routinely unable to do
the job we were elected to do and amend bills to represent the concerns
of the people of the United States which we are both privileged and
obligated to serve.
Despite his promises, Speaker Ryan has shown a complete disregard for
regular order since assuming the gavel. Bills routinely come before the
Rules Committee that haven't even been considered by the relevant
committees. The majority even moved a healthcare repeal bill through
this Chamber earlier this year without a score from the nonpartisan
experts at the Congressional Budget Office.
This measure would impact one-sixth of our Nation's economy and tens
of millions of people if it became law.
This is no way to run the people's House. The public expects more,
and it is high time that we heed those calls.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule,
and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to thank my colleague not only for this long week that we have
had at the Rules Committee, but I also want to thank her other members,
the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), for not only their vigorous
debate and conversations that we have had, but actually trying to
prepare us at the Rules Committee for that which we believe would lie
ahead.
Today, you heard the gentlewoman ask about several important issues.
Part of our job is to kind of pitch and catch, and that is to catch the
things that come our way. But she is using her vision to look ahead,
and I admire that. I do owe her answers, and her background and
experience would tell her, let's get moving on these things if we are
going to get them done. I hope that I have provided her with feedback
from the gentleman, Mr. Walden, saying exactly that.
Mr. Speaker, as the hurricane was still over Houston, Texas, dumping
50 inches of rain, I received a conference call from a number of people
in Houston as they were preparing to reestablish not only their own
communities within Houston, but also the livelihood of the business
community, and to be prepared.
I got a conference call from a group of gentlemen, Mr. Tom
Singletary, Mr. Kevin Hedges, Mr. Steve Kessling, Mr. Wallace B.
Livesay, and Mr. Steve Raben from Houston. They called me and said: We
need, as quickly as we can, to get information about taxes, about
people pulling money out of their IRAs, and what the rules and
regulations would be for that.
Mr. Speaker, part of my job is to respond to people, to listen to
them, and to listen to their needs. I will tell you that the Houston
delegation, on a bipartisan basis, up and down the coast, going down to
Blake Farenthold in Corpus Christi, all the way up to Garret Graves who
is in Louisiana, felt the fury of Mother Nature. But it didn't mean
that it had to divide us or to defeat us.
I have seen nothing but resolve that has come from not only those in
Texas but also those in Florida, our two colleagues, Jenniffer Gonzalez
who is located in Puerto Rico, and Stacey Plaskett who is a fine young
Delegate out of the Virgin Islands. They have asked for help. They have
asked for the things that would be necessary.
But our ability to effectively listen and turn around in the form of
legislation, our ability to be able to schedule meetings and, on a
bipartisan basis, be able to talk and sometimes agree and sometimes
disagree but to get our work done is an amazing part of this experiment
that we are engaged in.
[[Page H7547]]
I, myself, Mr. Speaker, want to thank you for not only your hard work
of being here today but being a part of this process. As all of us work
together, we can make this process work and give confidence to the
American people. That confidence is expressed with what we do today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 538 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
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. 4. 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. SESSIONS. 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 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________