[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 159 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H7764-H7777]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 71, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 
                   ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 553 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 553

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 71) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2018 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2019 through 2027. The first reading 
     of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the concurrent 
     resolution are waived. General debate shall not exceed four 
     hours, with three hours of general debate confined to the 
     congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Budget and one hour of general debate on the subject of 
     economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by 
     Representative Tiberi of Ohio and Representative Carolyn 
     Maloney of New York or their respective designees. After 
     general debate the concurrent resolution shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. The concurrent 
     resolution shall be considered as read. No amendment shall be 
     in order except those printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment 
     may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
     be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
     be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except that the adoption of an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the 
     conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for 
     amendment. After the conclusion of consideration of the 
     concurrent resolution for amendment and a final period of 
     general debate, which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Budget, the Committee shall 
     rise and report the concurrent resolution to the House with 
     such amendment as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent 
     resolution and amendments thereto to adoption without 
     intervening motion except amendments offered by the chair of 
     the Committee on the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical 
     consistency. The concurrent resolution shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.

  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 gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all of my 
colleagues may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a great day. I don't know 
how your Wednesday has gotten started, but we are now in the throes of 
budget day.
  Budget day only happens on the floor of this House once a year, and 
it is one of those times where I would tell you the House operates as 
every man, woman, and child across this country believes the House 
should operate every day.
  I have the great honor as a member of the Rules Committee and as a 
member of the Budget Committee of bringing this structured rule to the 
floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 71, the rule that we will be debating for 
the next hour, makes in order every single budget substitute that was 
offered in the Rules Committee. Now, let me tell you what that means in 
practical terms.
  Over the next 2 days, we are going to hear visions laid out for what 
the American government should spend, what American policies should 
look like, what the Federal budget should include.
  Over the next 2 days, we are going to hear visions laid out from 
every single Member or group in this institution that cared enough 
about this process to craft a budget of their own.
  Mr. Speaker, I serve in the Republican Study Committee. I was once 
chairman of the Budget and Spending Task Force on the Republican Study 
Committee. I had the honor of crafting a substitute budget to bring to 
the floor to offer for my colleagues' consideration.
  Over the next 2 days, any Member who has a voice that needs to be 
heard

[[Page H7765]]

has had the opportunity. We put out the call last week. My friend from 
Massachusetts and I, we sit on the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker. We 
send out the call to the membership in advance to say this is what we 
expect to happen in the Rules Committee, this is what we are going to 
be considering in the Rules Committee. We sent out the call for any 
Member of this House to craft their substitute amendment, and we 
received four.
  We received one from the Congressional Black Caucus, we received one 
from the Progressive Caucus, we received one from the Republican Study 
Committee, and we received one from the Democrats on the Budget 
Committee. Every single one of those has been made in order by the rule 
that I will ask my colleagues to support today.
  We are going to debate those. We are going to vote on those each 
individually, allowing everybody to have their say. That budget that 
this House ultimately agrees on collectively, collaboratively after 
these days of debate, we will then send to the United States Senate for 
its consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, they say that budgets are a reflection of values. I 
believe that to be true. We are going to have budgets on the floor of 
the House to consider that cut taxes, budgets that believe that the 
economy has not grown to its full potential, budgets that believe that 
the American workforce participation rate is still at historically low 
levels. We have to get men and women back into the workforce. We have 
to reward that dignity of work. We have budgets that are going to cut 
taxes in an effort to stimulate that job growth across this land.
  We have other budgets that are concerned that we are not bringing 
enough revenue into the government coffers. It is true, Mr. Speaker. I 
know you are thinking it. We are bringing in more tax revenue today 
than we have ever brought in in the history of the United States of 
America. That is true, but we are still running budget deficits. So we 
will consider those budgets today that don't necessarily believe that 
spending is the problem; they think it is tax collection that is the 
problem.
  We will consider budgets that raise taxes by about $2 trillion. We 
will consider other budgets that raise taxes by about $4 trillion. Mr. 
Speaker, I think we will even consider budgets that raise taxes by $9 
trillion.
  Mr. Speaker, there are only two things that can happen in this 
institution. We either have to raise more revenue, or we have to cut 
spending, or we have to mortgage our children's future. Three things: 
raise taxes, cut spending, mortgage our children's future.
  Over the next 2 days, we are going to have that debate and we are 
going to have that discussion.
  I know where my constituency lands, Mr. Speaker. There are tough 
decisions that have to be made, and they believe they sent men and 
women to Congress to help make those tough decisions. We sit on the 
Budget Committee. That is what we do.
  If you have not gotten a chance to work with her this season, Mr. 
Speaker, Chairwoman Diane Black on the House Budget Committee, if there 
is a more patient and more persistent Member of this body, I don't know 
who that would be. She has worked tirelessly to move this process 
along, to get us to this point where we are today, trying to bring 
people together around a unified vision of what we can do and what we 
should do not just as an institution, but as a nation.
  I expect we will have some disagreements over the next 2 days, Mr. 
Speaker. It won't surprise me at all. In fact, I think this institution 
is characterized by the things that we disagree about. Certainly that 
is what the media would like to focus on. But at the end of this 
process, what will have to be said is that we have considered every 
idea, that we have considered every point of view, that we have made 
room for every voice, and that we have now come together on a common 
pathway forward. That is what is ahead of us, Mr. Speaker, if 
we support this rule that we are debating now.

  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. I hope you will 
find that budget that meets your constituency's needs, support that 
underlying budget, and then let's move a budget to the United States 
Senate and speak with one voice for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I obviously rise in strong opposition to 
this rule. This can be a frustrating place. So frustrating, that 
sometimes I want to tear the remaining two strands of hair I have on my 
head out, because what we do here, in my opinion, is not to advance 
anything that is good for the American people. This is a frustrating 
place, because what happens on this House floor is either nothing or 
you guys make things worse.
  On Sunday, we once again witnessed a massacre, the worst mass 
shooting in American history. People across this country are demanding 
action, but the response of the Republican leadership in this Congress 
is nothing. We had a moment of silence, but it means nothing because 
that is all we do. There are no hearings, no debate, no votes, just 
absolutely nothing.
  It is obvious that too many Republicans have been intimidated and 
have been frightened or have been bought off by the National Rifle 
Association. It is shameful and, quite frankly, it is disgusting.
  If the Republican leadership of this House is not willing to lead, 
then move aside. Allow us to bring measures to the floor so we can have 
a vote, so we can have a debate, so we can enact measures that might 
save some lives.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are considering today, this Republican budget, 
is an example of the majority making things worse for the American 
people.
  Budgets are moral documents. They show what we value and what we care 
about. And if this budget reflects Republican values, then shame on 
Republicans. When you look at the specific programs House Republicans 
target, it becomes clear just how cruel this budget really is.
  Last night, in the Rules Committee, I complained loudly to the 
distinguished chairwoman of the Budget Committee about the cuts to the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP, basically a 
program that provides poor people food. It helps prevent hunger in this 
country. In this budget, they call for $164 billion in cuts to this 
program.
  The chairwoman said: Well, I believe that people who get this benefit 
ought to work.
  I pointed out to her last night, and I am going to point out to my 
colleagues here today, that the majority of people on this program--67 
percent of the people who are on this program are not expected to work. 
Why? Because they are children, because they are senior citizens, 
because they are disabled.
  Of those who can work, the majority work. But you have individuals 
who are working, who are on SNAP because they earn so little that they 
still qualify for this program.
  So why aren't we demanding that work pay more in this country? Why 
aren't we coming together to demand an increase in the minimum wage so 
it is a livable wage, so that people who work don't have to be on 
public assistance?
  Instead, we have yet another attack on poor people in the form of 
these cuts.
  The gentlewoman said: Well, I want to narrow it down to just able-
bodied adults without dependents. They all ought to work.

                              {time}  1245

  Well, many of these people do work, Mr. Speaker, but many of them 
don't work, for a number of reasons. Many have limited educational 
experience, with 80 percent having no more than a high school education 
or a GED. Some are aging out of foster care. Some have underlying 
mental health issues, difficult histories of substance abuse, or are 
ex-offenders with nowhere else to turn.
  As many as 60,000 of these able-bodied adults without dependents who 
have qualified for SNAP initially are veterans. These are brave, 
courageous men and women who have served our country, who have returned 
home and are having difficulty reintegrating into the community, 
getting on their feet. Our gratitude for their service is, we

[[Page H7766]]

are going to throw you off the food benefit? I don't know what people 
are thinking who drafted this in the budget.
  The chairwoman of the Budget Committee said: Well, it is important 
that we constantly review programs to see if they are working, if they 
are living up to our expectations. I agree. I am a liberal Democrat. I 
want to make sure that whatever programs are in existence are working, 
are effective. Nobody is for ineffective government.
  I happen to sit on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Speaker. We have 
already held 23 oversight hearings on this program--23 on SNAP alone. 
We have had Republican witnesses, and we have had Democratic witnesses. 
As my friend from Georgia knows, his party is in control, so 
Republicans get to have more witnesses than Democrats do. We have had 
23 hearings, and not one witness, not one, recommended a $164 billion 
cut in this program.
  In fact, what they recommended, Democrats and Republicans, was that 
we ought to strengthen wraparound services. That means like you ought 
to fund fully job training programs so that States can guarantee people 
a slot in a job training program.
  Many argue, Democratic and Republican witnesses, that the benefit is 
too inadequate, that we need to expand the benefit, because contrary to 
what you hear oftentimes on this floor about SNAP and about how 
generous the benefit is and that it is like a gravy train, if you will, 
the average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per person per meal. That is it. That 
is the benefit.
  That is why when you talk to the heads of food banks all across the 
country, in every State in this country, they tell you the same thing, 
that they experience an uptick in people who need to utilize their 
services in the middle and toward the end of the month because, 
basically, the benefit is not enough to carry them through the month so 
they can put enough food on the table for them and their families.
  We have 42 million people in the United States of America, the 
richest country in the history of the world, who are hungry. I am 
ashamed of that, and I am ashamed because hunger is a political 
condition.
  What I mean by that is we can solve it, but we don't, because for 
some reason, this population, these people struggling in poverty, never 
quite rise to the level as the very wealthy in this country.
  We have a budget here that not only cuts SNAP but basically cuts a 
whole bunch of other programs aimed at helping people get out of 
poverty and helping struggling middle class families.
  Basically, this budget, just so everybody is clear, is kind of a 
blueprint to help pave the way for the Republican tax cut bill that 
they are going to produce on this floor in the not-too-distant future.
  It was interesting last night in the Rules Committee, we heard people 
talk about, well, we have to make tough choices because we don't want 
to saddle our children and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren 
with debt. Well, if, in fact, my Republican friends get their wish and 
pass this tax cut, we are told that it will add about $2.4 trillion to 
our debt.
  The deal is this, Mr. Speaker. One of the faults in their budget is 
they have these assumptions that we all know are not true. Like, for 
example, the Affordable Care Act is going to kind of mysteriously just 
disappear, and they are going to be able to cut Medicaid by close to $1 
trillion to help offset the cost of their tax cut. But the last time I 
checked, their repeal barely passed this House, and it can't seem to 
get anywhere in the United States Senate. Their assumptions are 
fantasy. They are not based on reality.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not just food assistance that this budget 
dismantles. It cuts half a trillion dollars in Medicare and ends the 
Medicare guarantee. It rips apart the Affordable Care Act, drastically 
raising healthcare costs for older and low-income adults, and kicks 
another 20 million people off their health insurance if they get their 
wish here. It makes higher education more expensive. It cuts veterans' 
benefits. It reduces our commitment to ensuring that our neighbors have 
access to affordable housing. It even sticks the American taxpayer with 
a $1.6 billion bill to begin constructing a costly and stupid and 
ineffective wall along the U.S. southern border with Mexico.
  In case people are scratching their heads, during the campaign, 
Donald Trump said that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. I guess he 
didn't mean it because a downpayment was put into their budget.
  I could go on and on and on, but you might ask yourself, Mr. Speaker: 
Who wins? The answer is simple. If this budget goes through, and they 
pave the way for their tax cut, it is clear who the winners are: Donald 
Trump, the Trump family, and all of his wealthy friends. While all 
these cuts in the budget come from our safety net programs, 
infrastructure investments, and programs that help middle and working 
class families, none of the savings in this budget--that is right, not 
one penny--come from closing tax loopholes that benefit big 
corporations or the wealthy.
  As I said before, the drastic cuts are all being used to try to 
finance this massive tax cut that disproportionately benefits the 
wealthiest in this country. Give me a break.
  Mr. Speaker, it is galling how indifferent that so many in this House 
seem to be to those who are struggling in poverty. America's most 
vulnerable, granted they don't have super PACs, they don't have big 
lobbyists, their voice in Washington is supposed to be us. The whole 
purpose of government, in my view, is to make sure that everybody gets 
a fair shake, and the people who need government the most are the 
people who are struggling in poverty.

  But to listen to my colleagues and to look at this budget that they 
put together, it is clear that the poorest Americans in this country 
are being treated as if they don't exist, as if they are invisible, as 
if they don't matter. I just find that deeply offensive.
  President Kennedy said it this way. He said: ``If a free society 
cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are 
rich.'' It is frustrating. It is just frustrating that here we are with 
this budget which devastates so much of what I think is important.
  If we implemented what this budget asks us to do, this country would 
become a tale of two cities, and it is already getting to that point. 
It would truly become a tale of two cities. It would create a 
government without a conscience, and I think we need to push back and 
we need to reject that.
  Mr. Speaker, this isn't some Ayn Rand fantasy where we can just mess 
with the numbers and see what happens. We are talking about real people 
here--people who are counting on us; people who need help. This budget 
fails by any measure, in my opinion, to be a budget even for 
Republicans to support.
  I think America's hardworking middle class families and all those 
working to struggle to get in the middle class deserve a heck of a lot 
better than this.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and 
certainly vote against this cruel Republican budget, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, you heard the passion of my friend from Massachusetts, 
and I have had an opportunity to work with him on the Rules Committee 
for 7 years now. I can tell you that every bit of that passion is 
sincere.
  So often I think folks turn on C-SPAN, they look at a group of 
politicians talking, and they think it is all for the cameras and it is 
all for show. I will tell you that while I sometimes have that same 
suspicion when I turn on a program of folks I don't know, with folks I 
do know, I can tell you that that passion is sincere.
  What I can also tell you is that many of those concerns are 
misguided, and I think that is important. What happens here in this 
institution matters. Our ability to have that debate with one another 
matters. The truth is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, most of that debate 
doesn't happen here on the House floor.
  My friend from Massachusetts and I are here today because it is time 
to vote. We are here to bring the rule, we are here to bring the 
substitutes, we are here over the next 2 days to vote. The conversation 
has gone on not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, but for the 
better part of this year on what the budget is going to look like.
  I happen to have a copy of the budget report right here, Mr. Speaker. 
It captures all the votes we have taken. It

[[Page H7767]]

captures all the debates we have had. It captures what the intent of 
the institution is.
  Now again, we are going to have a choice of which budget we want to 
support. If you think taxes are too low, you can vote to raise taxes. 
If you think taxes are much too low, you can vote to raise taxes a 
whole lot. If you think the tax code as it exists today is a ridiculous 
compilation of confusing provisions stitched together by a patchwork of 
Congresses over the last 40 years, you can vote for fundamental reform.
  If you are tired of the fact that America used to be number one in 
the world in terms of tax competitiveness and now we are at the bottom 
of the list and you want to take America back to being number one, you 
can vote for that, too. I happen to put myself in that category.
  I want to read, if I may, Mr. Speaker, from the budget report. The 
fact is, I can't. I imagined myself a younger man when I grabbed that 
report.
  If I can now read from the budget report. ``The resolution's 
reconciliation instructions,'' that is what is in the budget, Mr. 
Speaker. That is what allows us to take a tax package from the House to 
the Senate. You have heard about how the Senate is having a tough time 
getting anything done because it requires a supermajority. It requires 
60 votes. Through reconciliation, you can get things done with less 
than 60 votes. That is how the Affordable Care Act was passed, with 
less than 60 votes. You can get the tax bill passed with less than 60 
votes.
  It says this. ``The resolution's reconciliation instructions that the 
Committee on Ways and Means will develop will be a deficit-neutral tax 
reform legislation and report such legislative language to the 
Committee on the Budget.'' Deficit neutral. Nobody wants to blow a hole 
in the budget, Mr. Speaker.
  What the discussion is, is can we do better than today's tax code? 
Candidly, Mr. Speaker, if any Member of this body wants to take the 
position that we can't do any better, the IRS is as good as it can be 
in implementing the American Tax Code today, the Tax Code that is twice 
as long as the Bible is absolutely as concise and succinct as it can 
possibly be, those Americans who spend dozens of hours, even dozens of 
days, even dozens of weeks trying to put together their taxes, that is 
just the best we can do.
  Mr. Speaker, I have seen it happen. Sometimes folks throw their hands 
up and think: We can't do any better. Not me. Not today.
  We can all agree that we can do better than what we are doing today. 
Passage of this budget gives us that opportunity.
  You heard my friend from Massachusetts speak from the heart, Mr. 
Speaker, about the ability we have as a government to care for one 
another. I would tell you that responsibility isn't uniquely a 
government responsibility. I would say it is a faith responsibility, it 
is a family responsibility, it is a community responsibility. It is a 
responsibility that begins at home. It doesn't begin here, it begins at 
home, but it is a sincere responsibility, and it is one that we want to 
do better at every day.
  I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the labor force participation 
rate in America is the lowest it has been since the President from my 
great State of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, was in office. The labor force 
participation rate. There is not one of us in this body who can drive 
down the street without seeing a ``help wanted'' sign. There is not one 
of us in this body who can go out to a business without seeing someone 
asking folks to come in and help, yet fewer Americans are working today 
than ever before. Why? It is a hard question.
  Fewer Americans are working today than since the 1970s. Why? It is 
important that we ask that question.
  The budget is not designed to answer it. The budget can't answer it. 
I sit on the Budget Committee. I don't have the jurisdiction to answer 
it, but I know this: you will find in this budget a discussion of 
whether it is better to support people in poverty or lift folks out of 
poverty.

                              {time}  1300

  It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. I would tell you that we 
can support people until we can lift them up, but that lifting them up 
must be our goal. Supporting them is not enough.
  You will find it here, Mr. Speaker, in these pages. This is a vision 
document. This is what we are gathered together to do today, and we 
will have legitimate disagreements about when we are doing enough in a 
particular area and when we are doing too much.
  There are those in this body, Mr. Speaker, who believe passionately 
in education. I am one of those people. I come from a district with 
amazing school systems.
  You can go to any public school in my district, Mr. Speaker, if you 
work hard and apply yourself. I don't care what your background is, I 
don't care where your family is from, I don't care what you have 
stacked against you; if you work hard and apply yourself in our public 
schools, you can be anything you want to be.
  I know everybody wants that for their constituency back home; and I 
have colleagues who believe that only Washington, D.C., is successful 
enough, has a track record of success strong enough to implement that 
vision back home.
  I don't come from that camp. I see a lot of failure come out of 
Washington, D.C. I see a lot of bureaucracy come out of Washington, 
D.C. I see success come out of parents and teachers and principals back 
home raising taxes, supporting those institutions, making sure every 
child has a chance. We do that together as a community.
  The discussion that we might have in this institution, Mr. Speaker, 
is not: Do you believe in education?
  It is: Do you believe educators in Washington, D.C., have the best 
answers, or educators back home in your district have the answers?
  The truth is that we don't have many educators in Washington, D.C. We 
have bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., who oversee educators. I side 
with my educators back home. It is a legitimate disagreement that we 
are welcome to have.
  What can't be said, though, Mr. Speaker, is that there are any 
disagreements over these next few days that we are not going to be 
allowed to have. I have said it before, and I will say it again because 
it makes me so proud. We don't always have time or make room for all 
the voices in this institution, Mr. Speaker. You know, sometimes we 
pick and choose winners and losers, whose voice is going to be heard. 
Not today. Any Member of Congress could submit their budget to the 
United States House of Representatives Committee on Rules.
  It is a hard thing to produce a budget. I told you I have done it 
before, Mr. Speaker. It takes a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of 
commitment. But if you believe that you have a better idea, you can do 
it. And if you did it, we made it in order in the Rules Committee last 
night and we are going to debate it on the floor and we are going to 
vote on it on the floor.
  We can't always say that every single idea, every single substitute 
is going to make it to the floor for a vote. We can say that today. I 
am proud that we can.
  It is not going to stop the disagreements, Mr. Speaker, but what it 
is going to do is air those disagreements; what it is going to do is 
allow us to talk about our differing visions; and what it is going to 
do is allow us to come together on a common vision at the end of the 
day.
  I hope my colleagues will support this rule so we can begin that 
process, and I hope my colleagues will support the underlying budget of 
their choice.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the United States 
Conference of Catholic Bishops in opposition to the Republican budget.

                                       United States Conference of


                                             Catholic Bishops,

                                  Washington, DC, August 31, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: As Congress proceeds with the 2018 
     budget process, the United States Conference of Catholic 
     Bishops (USCCB) reaffirms that the federal budget is a moral 
     document with profound implications for the common good of 
     our nation and world. The budget requires difficult decisions 
     that ought to be guided by moral criteria that protect human 
     life and dignity, give central importance to ``the least of 
     these'' (Matthew 25), and promote the welfare of workers and 
     families who struggle to live in dignity.
       The Catholic Church teaches that it is the role of the 
     state to promote the three pillars

[[Page H7768]]

     of the common good. In May 2017, we outlined these three 
     pillars: respect for the fundamental and inalienable rights 
     of the human person, promotion of human development, and 
     defense of peace. Our Conference has long supported the goal 
     of reducing future unsustainable deficits that would harm all 
     citizens, especially those who are poor. However, a just 
     framework for sound fiscal policy cannot rely almost 
     exclusively on disproportionate cuts in essential services to 
     poor and vulnerable persons.
       Sharp increases in defense and immigration enforcement 
     spending, coupled with simultaneous and severe reductions to 
     non-defense discretionary spending, particularly to many 
     domestic and international programs that assist the most 
     vulnerable, are profoundly troubling. The House Budget 
     Committee's H. Con. Res. 71 proposes increasing defense 
     spending by $929 billion over the next decade, which is $72 
     billion above sequester levels. This is coupled with a 
     proposal to cut $4.4 trillion over the same period from 
     domestic and international programs that assist the most 
     vulnerable, potentially impacting health care safety net 
     programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP, as well as food 
     security programs like SNAP. The proposal would also reduce 
     current funding levels for environmental stewardship by $824 
     million.
       Such deep cuts would harm people facing dire circumstances, 
     and would place the environment and natural resources at 
     risk. When the impact of other potential legislative 
     proposals, including the proposed reduction of spending on 
     health care by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 
     decade and implementation of tax policies that would offer 
     trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy over the same 
     period are considered, the prospects for vulnerable people 
     become even bleaker.
       Our nation should elevate diplomacy, along with 
     humanitarian and international development assistance, as 
     primary tools for promoting lasting peace, regional stability 
     and human rights. The USCCB urges Congress to reject H. Con. 
     Res. 71's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget authority level of 
     $41.521 billion for the International Affairs functions of 
     government. This would represent a $10 billion cut from this 
     year's appropriations for those functions. Although the USCCB 
     does not support every individual International Affairs 
     account, it has repeatedly called for robust diplomatic 
     efforts to end longstanding conflicts in a range of 
     countries, including Syria and Iraq, as well as for robust 
     funding for refugee and humanitarian assistance. It is hard 
     to reconcile the need for diplomacy, political solutions, and 
     life-saving humanitarian and development assistance with cuts 
     to the State Department budget of the magnitude proposed by 
     H. Con. Res. 71.
       At the same time, H. Con. Res. 71 anticipates dramatic 
     increases in immigration enforcement spending. We fear that 
     such increases could pave the way for enactment of many of 
     the destructive proposals contained in recently released 
     budget plans, including increases in immigrant detention 
     beds, the construction of a wall along the entire border 
     between the United States and Mexico, and the expansion of 
     agreements with state and local governments that threaten 
     local law enforcement's ability to foster trusting 
     relationships with immigrants in their jurisdictions. Any 
     changes to the tax code called for through reconciliation 
     should include a provision to empower the educational choices 
     of families. The reconciliation process should not be used to 
     achieve savings through cutting health care, nutrition, 
     income security, or other anti-poverty programs. This budget 
     attempts to use the reconciliation process to fast-track over 
     $200 billion in cuts to anti-poverty programs over the next 
     ten years, including Medicaid and Medicare. The bishops have 
     devoted their efforts to addressing the morally problematic 
     features of health care reform while insuring that all people 
     have access to health care coverage.
       The human consequences of budget choices are clear to us as 
     pastors. Our Catholic community defends the unborn and the 
     undocumented, feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, 
     educates the young, and cares for the sick, both at home and 
     abroad. We help mothers facing challenging situations of 
     pregnancy, poor families rising above crushing poverty, 
     refugees fleeing conflict and persecution, and communities 
     devastated by wars, natural disasters and famines. In much of 
     this work, we are partners with government. Our combined 
     resources allow us to reach further and help more. Our 
     institutions are present in every state and throughout the 
     world, serving some of the most marginalized communities and 
     enjoying the trust of local populations.
       The moral measure of the federal budget is how well it 
     promotes the common good of all, especially the most 
     vulnerable whose voices are too often missing in these 
     debates. The Catholic Bishops of the United States stand 
     ready to work with leaders of both parties for a federal 
     budget that reduces future deficits, protects poor and 
     vulnerable people, and advances peace and the common good.
           Sincerely yours,
     His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan,
       Archbishop of New York, Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life 
     Activities.
     Most Rev. Oscar Cantu,
       Bishop of Las Cruces, Chairman, Committee on International 
     Justice and Peace.
     Most Rev. Christopher J. Coyne,
       Bishop of Burlington, Chairman, Committee on 
     Communications.
     Most Rev. Frank J. Dewane,
       Bishop of Venice, Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice 
     and Human Development.
     Most Rev. George V. Murry, SJ,
       Bishop of Youngstown, Chairman, Committee on Catholic 
     Education.
     Most Rev. Joe S. Vasquez,
       Bishop of Austin, Chairman, Committee on Migration.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the 
Coalition on Human Needs against the Republican budget.

                                     Coalition on Human Needs,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Coalition on Human 
     Needs, I strongly urge you to vote no on H. Con. Res. 71, the 
     proposed FY 2018 Budget Resolution, and to vote for the 
     substitute budgets advanced by the Congressional Progressive 
     Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and the Democratic 
     alternative budget resolution.
       The Coalition on Human Needs is an alliance made up of 
     human service providers, faith organizations, policy experts, 
     labor, civil rights, and other advocates for meeting the 
     needs of low-income and vulnerable people. Our members 
     understand that the economic security of millions of American 
     families depends on building on the progress we've made in 
     health coverage, jobs, basic living standards, and ensuring 
     that our children are well-prepared for productive lives. But 
     the majority's proposed budget does not build--it breaks 
     apart our engines of progress. It will make our nation weaker 
     for decades to come.
       The most recent survey data on poverty in the U.S. shows 
     the biggest two-year decline since the late 1960's. 
     Refundable tax credits for working families, SNAP/food stamps 
     and housing subsidies have lifted multi-millions of people 
     out of poverty. The decline in the proportion of our 
     population without health insurance continued its decline in 
     2016, down to 8.8 percent. More people are working, and in 
     general, low- and moderate-income households have finally 
     started to make income gains.
       The budget advanced by the House Budget Committee would be 
     a dangerous backwards plunge, stripping trillions of dollars 
     from programs that work to reduce poverty and create security 
     and opportunity. Medicaid, Medicare, working family tax 
     credits, nutrition assistance, education and housing 
     assistance: these are just some of the services the budget 
     would massively cut. The budget takes trillions in funding 
     that supports economic security and progress and hands it to 
     the wealthy and corporations in the form of enormous tax 
     cuts.
       The primary goal of H. Con. Res. 71 is to allow huge tax 
     cuts to be enacted with only a simple majority in the Senate. 
     These tax cuts are claimed to be a critical element in 
     increasing economic growth enough to make the tax cuts 
     deficit neutral. Reputable economists are skeptical that the 
     proposed tax cuts would boost the economy to the 2.6 percent 
     average growth projected in the budget and acknowledge that 
     tax cuts to corporations and the rich deepen the deficit. 
     History supports this: the economy grew and unemployment 
     declined more during the Clinton tax increase years than 
     during the Bush era tax cuts. And the Kansas experience with 
     tax cuts is cautionary: revenues plummeted, with the tax take 
     in 2016 $570 million lower than in 2013, even after counting 
     increases enacted in sales and cigarette taxes. The economic 
     growth that did occur from cutting taxes was estimated to 
     bring in about $30 million, leaving the state very deeply in 
     the hole. The state legislature has recently reversed course, 
     unwilling to slash education budgets as much as the revenue 
     hole would have forced. They saw that they were weakening 
     their state. Congress should not inflict the same dangerous 
     lesson on the entire nation.
       We urge you to reject H. Con. Res. 71 because of its 
     central choice: paying for tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor 
     the rich and corporations with cuts to essential services. 
     Our nation faces major challenges: reducing disproportionate 
     poverty among children and helping children and young adults 
     to advance in education so they can meet the challenges in 
     our economic future, protecting seniors in their retirement, 
     and rebuilding communities. Both the emergency needs of 
     communities devastated by natural disasters and the similarly 
     urgent threats from opioids and other epidemics, decaying 
     infrastructure and inadequate public health and consumer 
     protections demand a vigorous federal response. Instead of 
     making these investments, the House budget would cripple the 
     federal capacity to respond by slashing domestic 
     appropriations by 44 percent compared with FY 2010 levels 
     over the next decade and making similarly extreme cuts in

[[Page H7769]]

     health care, nutrition, income assistance for seniors, people 
     with disabilities, and working families. In addition to 
     trillions of dollars in cuts and structural constraints to 
     basic mandatory programs, the budget would fast-track $203 
     billion in cuts to domestic programs over the next ten years 
     through reconciliation rules. Cuts like these would 
     recklessly weaken us; they are self-inflicted wounds.
       The proposed tax cuts will worsen inequality and reward 
     businesses that park their income offshore. Instead, Congress 
     should insist that corporations and the rich pay their fair 
     share. Please vote against weakening America, and instead 
     protect and expand investments as called for in the budgets 
     proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, 
     Congressional Black Caucus, and the House Budget Committee 
     Democrats' substitute. These three constructive alternatives 
     deserve your yes vote.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Deborah Weinstein,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to all 
Members of Congress from the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda 
against this Republican budget.

                                                 National Hispanic


                                            Leadership Agenda,

                                                    July 26, 2017.
     Re NHLA opposition to House Budget Resolution.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Hispanic 
     Leadership Agenda (NHLA), the coalition of the nation's 45 
     preeminent Latino advocacy organizations, we are writing to 
     express our deep concerns with the budget resolution that 
     recently passed out of the House Budget Committee and urge 
     you to vote against passage of the resolution if it comes to 
     the House floor. The resolution threatens the basic living 
     standards of tens of millions of Americans in order to 
     subsidize tax cuts for the wealthy. From education and 
     scientific research to basic assistance and health programs, 
     the House budget would cut $4.4 trillion from entitlement 
     programs and $1.3 trillion from non-defense discretionary 
     programs over the next decade, crippling the most important 
     drivers of our nation's economic engine--working families. 
     For these reasons, and those detailed further below, NHLA 
     will consider any votes on the budget resolution for 
     inclusion in future NHLA scorecards evaluating the support of 
     Members of Congress for the Latino community.
       Budget resolutions serve as fiscal blueprints that signal 
     the priorities of government spending to support all 
     Americans in their attainment of the American Dream. However, 
     rather than seek to bolster opportunities for American 
     working families, the House budget places the burden of 
     reducing our deficit squarely on the backs of families 
     struggling to make ends meet in order to give tax breaks to 
     wealthy corporations and individuals. Rather than investing 
     in America's future homebuyers, workers, and students, both 
     the House budget and President Trump's budget undermine the 
     progress our country has made and prioritize corporate 
     interests over those of hardworking American families.
       The trillions of dollars of cuts in the House budget would 
     have a catastrophic impact on the millions of Latinos who 
     struggle to put food on their tables and a roof over their 
     heads. Recent research by UnidosUS (formerly NCLR) provides 
     evidence of the strong impact of federal assistance programs 
     on lifting millions of Latinos, especially children, out of 
     poverty. In 2015, for example:
       Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) lifted about 2 7 million 
     Latinos out of poverty, including 1.4 million children.
       Child Tax Credit (CTC) lifted an estimated 981,000 Latinos 
     out of poverty, including 560,000 children.
       Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) lifted an 
     estimated 1.3 million Latinos out of poverty, including 
     640,000 children.
       Rental assistance lifted about 720,000 Latinos out of 
     poverty, including 270,000 children.
       Supplemental Security Income (SSI) lifted an estimated 
     630,000 Latinos out of poverty, including 140,000 children.
       The House budget resolution would threaten the 
     effectiveness of many of these programs. The budget plan also 
     calls for cuts to Medicaid and other health programs more 
     severe than the House-passed bill to repeal the Affordable 
     Care Act.
       Further, the House budget resolution dismantles consumer 
     and worker protections, jeopardizing the ability of Latino 
     and all working families to build and maintain wealth. The 
     budget plan not only guts the Consumer Financial Protection 
     Bureau--the only agency whose sole mission is to protect 
     Americans from predatory practices in the financial 
     marketplace--but also undermines our nation's workforce, 
     cutting funding for the Wage and House Division in the 
     Department of Labor more deeply than proposed in the Trump 
     budget. Additionally, Latino workers cannot afford cuts to 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, which protects our human 
     health and environment from toxic chemicals. Working families 
     need more and better enforcement of consumer financial and 
     labor protection laws to protect Americans from abuse, and 
     also ensure law-abiding financial service providers, as well 
     as employers, are not harmed by unfair competition by 
     unscrupulous actors.
       Simply put, the House budget resolution would harm American 
     families and workers, especially Latinos, making our nation 
     more inequitable and less prepared for economic challenges. 
     We strongly urge Members of Congress to oppose the House 
     budget plan and instead support a budget that defends the 
     interests of the American public and prudently spends 
     taxpayer dollars.
           Sincerely,
     Hector Sanchez Barba,
       Chair, NHLA, Executive Director, Labor Council for Latin 
     American Advancement (LCLAA).
     Bruce Goldstein,
       Co-Chair, NHLA Economic Empowerment and Labor Committee, 
     President, Farmworker Justice.
     Eric Rodriguez,
       Co-Chair, NHLA Economic Empowerment and Labor Committee, 
     Vice President, UnidosUS.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the 
AARP, the Main Street Alliance, and the League of Conservation Voters, 
all in strong opposition to the Republican budget.

                                                         AARP,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 2017.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of over 38 million 
     members and other Americans who are age 50 and older, AARP is 
     writing to communicate our views as you consider H. Con. Res. 
     71, the House Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal 
     Year 2018. As the process moves forward, AARP urges you to 
     support Social Security, Medicare, and other key programs 
     that millions of Americans depend upon for their health and 
     financial security and oppose proposals that would hurt older 
     Americans.


                      Medicare and Social Security

       Our members count on Social Security and Medicare and 
     believe they should be protected and strengthened for today's 
     seniors and future generations. Proposals creating a defined 
     contribution premium-support program; restricting access by 
     raising the age of eligibility; or allowing hospitals and 
     providers to arbitrarily charge consumers higher prices than 
     Medicare can make health care unaffordable for older 
     Americans. These proposals do little to actually lower the 
     cost of health care, but simply shift costs from Medicare 
     onto individuals--many of whom cannot afford to pay more for 
     their care. We urge you not to include attempts to cut 
     Medicare benefits or increase beneficiary costs in the 
     upcoming budget proposal.
       The typical senior, with an annual income of around $25,000 
     and already spending one out of every six dollars on health 
     care, counts on Social Security for the majority of their 
     income, and on Medicare for access to affordable health 
     coverage. We will continue to oppose changes to current law 
     that cut benefits, increase costs, or reduce the ability of 
     these critical programs to deliver on their benefit promises. 
     We urge you to continue to do so as well.


           Medicaid, Long-Term Services and Supports and SNAP

       Medicaid serves as a critical safety net for millions of 
     people in every state, including over 17 million poor elderly 
     and children and adults with disabilities, who rely on vital 
     Medicaid health and long-term care services. Efforts to 
     reduce or cap Medicaid funding could endanger the health, 
     safety, and care of millions of individuals who depend on the 
     essential services provided through this program. 
     Furthermore, caps could result in significant cost-shifts to 
     state governments unable to shoulder the costs of care 
     without sufficient federal support. Instead of arbitrary 
     caps, proposals should focus on efforts to improve Medicaid, 
     such as encouraging more individuals to receive services in 
     their homes and communities rather than costly institutional 
     care.
       SNAP plays a vital role in feeding millions of hungry 
     Americans, including over four million older Americans. 
     Proposals to block grant the program, or impose work 
     requirements will make SNAP less responsive and accessible in 
     times of need; and without clear work requirement exemptions 
     for the elderly and disabled, would bar these individuals 
     from receiving SNAP benefits.
       We ask you to reject the cuts proposed in H. Con. Res. 71. 
     We stand ready to work with you to develop proposals that 
     protect and improve Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and 
     SNAP.
           Sincerely,
     Jo Ann C. Jenkins,
       Chief Executive Officer.
     Joyce A. Rogers,
       SVP Government Affairs, AARP.
                                  ____



                                         Main Street Alliance,

                                  Washington, DC, October 2, 2017.
     Re H. Con. Res. 71, Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Resolution.

     Members of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives: Main Street Alliance, a network of 
     small business owners

[[Page H7770]]

     throughout the country, strongly urges you to oppose H. Con. 
     Res. 71, the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Resolution. This budget, 
     if enacted into law, would cut $3.4 trillion from Medicaid, 
     Medicare, Social Security, education, employment and 
     training, food and housing assistance, and infrastructure 
     spending over the next 10 years. This will significantly harm 
     small business owners and their employees, damage local 
     economies, and decimate state budgets.
       Millions of small business owners, their employees, and 
     their families rely on Medicaid and Medicare for access to 
     healthcare critical to their survival. The House Budget 
     Resolution would strip them of their health coverage. The 
     proposed budget would slash $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and 
     other health programs, and gut Medicare by $500 billion, 
     transforming both from systems in which beneficiaries are 
     guaranteed certain levels of coverage, to a capped amount per 
     enrollee. Work requirements would also be imposed on 
     Medicaid. This puts 69 million Medicaid recipients and 57 
     million Medicare beneficiaries at risk for a loss in 
     services, including millions of small business owners and 
     their employees.
       Healthcare, education, food, and housing costs would 
     skyrocket under the House Budget, devastating local economies 
     and small businesses that depend on consumer demand from 
     customers in their communities. In addition to the deep cuts 
     to healthcare, the budget would cut $150 billion from the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which enables 
     nearly 22 million families to put food on the table, and 
     eliminate $90 billion from education, training, employment, 
     and social services programs, significantly scaling back Pell 
     Grants, which help nearly 8 million students afford college. 
     These draconian spending cuts would force vulnerable and 
     working families to pay more for vital programs, resulting in 
     a reduction in their disposal income and the amount of money 
     they can spend on goods and services. Small business owners 
     would see a decline in customers.
       The House budget cuts would siphon trillions of dollars out 
     of state economies from 2018 to 2027. Because the block grant 
     funding scheme provides a fixed amount of Medicaid and 
     Medicare funding for states each year, the proposal would 
     also leave states on the hook for any and all unexpected 
     healthcare costs from recessions, natural disasters, public 
     health emergencies, or prescription drug price spikes, and 
     unaccounted costs like the aging of the population. The deep 
     reductions in federal healthcare, education, employment and 
     training, food and housing assistance, and infrastructure 
     spending would force states to make up the difference, 
     drastically cutting the quality of services offered. As state 
     budgets contract, employment would decrease and small 
     businesses would decline.
       The impact of the House Budget Resolution on small 
     businesses will be felt in the loss of vital services, 
     reduced business, and contracted state budgets. We urge you 
     to protect Main Street small businesses owners, working 
     families, communities, and economies, and oppose the House 
     Budget Resolution. Reject any budget that enables tax cuts 
     for the very wealthy and large profitable corporations to 
     lose revenue, since it will force deep cuts in vital programs 
     that harm small business.
           Signed,
                                                Amanda Ballantyne,
     National Director, Main Street Alliance.
                                  ____



                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 2017.
     Re Oppose FY18 House Budget Resolution.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters 
     (LCV) works to turn environmental values into national 
     priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National 
     Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of 
     members of Congress on environmental legislation. The 
     Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters 
     nationwide, and the media.
       LCV urges you to vote NO on H. Con. Res. 71. This budget 
     resolution includes a huge giveaway to oil and gas companies 
     by paving the way for drilling in the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge, one of America's most iconic landscapes. It 
     threatens environmental and public health safeguards, 
     provides tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and 
     slashes programs and protections that benefit communities 
     across the country, among other harmful provisions.
       The House budget resolution puts some of our most iconic 
     landscapes at risk. It contains reconciliation instructions 
     that aim to open up the pristine Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge and possibly other public lands and waters to 
     drilling. The Arctic Refuge is one of the largest remaining 
     intact ecosystems in the world. It has sustained the Gwich'in 
     people for centuries and is home to an incredible array of 
     wildlife, including caribou, wolves, polar bears, and nearly 
     200 species of migratory birds. We have a moral obligation to 
     protect this natural treasure and to transition to a clean 
     energy future.
       Following in the footsteps of the Trump administration's 
     unconscionable budget proposal, the House Republican 
     leadership's budget resolution would make dangerous cuts to 
     programs that benefit the most vulnerable in our society 
     while benefitting polluters. Included in the resolution are 
     provisions that will lead to trillions of dollars of cuts to 
     health care and programs that provide basic living standards 
     for struggling families, as well as other substantial cuts. 
     Meanwhile, it would account for $1.6 billion of federal funds 
     to pay for a xenophobic and environmentally harmful border 
     wall. Rather than investing in safeguards for clean air and 
     water, protections for our national parks and other public 
     lands that drive our outdoor recreation economy, and growing 
     clean energy industries, this budget sells out those 
     priorities to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and 
     billionaires and for gifts to corporate special interests.
       We urge you to REJECT H. Con. Res. 71 and will strongly 
     consider including the vote on this bill in the 2017 
     Scorecard.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gene Karpinski,
                                                        President.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that it is clear 
that, certainly on the Democratic side, we are very much dedicated to 
trying to lift people out of poverty. That is one of the reasons why we 
oppose this Republican budget that cuts $211 million from financial aid 
programs to help people be able to get additional higher education. 
That is one of the reasons why we have complained loudly about the 
inadequate funding for job training. You want people to train for 
employment, you need to make sure that those slots are available so 
that people can get the training and the assistance they need.
  The gentleman says: Don't worry about the debt because the 
reconciliation instructions will instruct the Ways and Means Committee 
to do a deficit neutral tax plan.
  Well, I mean, there is lots of stuff in here that are assumptions 
that aren't true, like, you repealed the Affordable Care Act. That 
didn't happen and it is not going to happen.
  And what we are told from the Tax Policy Center and the Committee for 
a Responsible Federal Budget, according to their analysis, is that what 
the Republicans are proposing in terms of their tax plan will basically 
cost well over $2 trillion, and that will be added to our debt.
  So I don't--we can debate fantasyland if we want, but the reality is 
the reality, and this budget is a bad deal for everybody.
  Mr. Speaker, this week, our Nation witnessed the deadliest mass 
shooting in history. We have endured horrific mass killings in Newtown, 
San Bernardino, Orlando, and now Las Vegas, among many others, all 
without any congressional action. The killings happen every single day 
on our streets, at public events, and even in our homes.
  Mr. Speaker, my heart broke when the children of Sandy Hook were 
killed, and I remain absolutely stunned that this Congress has done 
nothing about it, nothing.
  Now 59 people lost their lives in Las Vegas during what was supposed 
to be a celebratory event, a concert, and this is only 16 months after 
the last deadly mass shooting in Orlando. Gun violence in this country 
is out of control, and all we have done is cater to the gun lobby.
  The United States Congress is a legislative body, Mr. Speaker. We are 
not a think tank or a church or a synagogue. Thoughts and prayers are 
not what this country expects from us, and it is not what it needs from 
us. The people of this country need us to act, to pass laws that 
protect their lives and their children's lives.
  As my colleague in the Senate, Senator Chris Murphy, has said: ``This 
must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress 
are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend that there aren't 
any public policy responses to this epidemic. There are. And the 
thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are 
paired with legislative indifference.''
  For this reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Mr. Thompson's bill, H. Res. 367, 
which I am a cosponsor of, which would establish the Select Committee 
on Gun Violence Prevention.
  Mr. Speaker, let me explain what I mean when I say ``defeat the 
previous question.'' We are here debating which bills will come to the 
House floor this week, the agenda for the House of Representatives. The 
majority chose to consider their misguided budget. Fine. We can do 
that.

[[Page H7771]]

  But what I am saying is that we should also take the first step in at 
least setting up a committee to look at gun violence in America. So if 
we say no to ending debate on this rule, by defeating the previous 
question, we can then debate whether or not to create this committee. 
This is the least we can do.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, it was almost 5 years ago 
that this Nation witnessed the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook 
Elementary School, where 20 first graders were murdered in their 
classrooms, along with six of their teachers. Congress did nothing.
  A church in Charleston, a White supremacist walked in and murdered 
nine worshippers. Congress did nothing. And worse than that, Congress 
didn't even address what is called the ``Charleston loophole'' that 
allowed this deranged White supremacist to be able to buy a gun or 
obtain a gun that he was buying without completing the background 
check.
  Orlando, Florida, the nightclub: 49 people murdered. Congress did 
nothing.
  The congressional baseball game, one of our own was shot by some 
deranged murderer. Congress did nothing.
  Las Vegas, just these past days, a country music festival: 59 people 
murdered. The biggest mass shooting in the history of the United States 
of America. Even as sad, it is the 273rd mass shooting in the United 
States of America this year.
  So what is Congress going to do? More of nothing? That is not 
appropriate.
  In the almost 5 years since Sandy Hook, we have been working on our 
side of the aisle diligently to try and come up with some ideas, some 
solutions to help prevent gun violence, and we have come up with some. 
As a matter of fact, one of them is a bipartisan measure with a 
bipartisan coauthor on my bill, Mr. Peter King from New York, and we 
have four or five Republican coauthors on that bill.
  Have we had a hearing?
  No.
  Have we had a vote?
  No.
  All we are trying to do with that bill is expand background checks to 
make sure that criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can't buy 
firearms easily; make it more difficult for these people, who we know 
commit crimes with these guns, to get their hands on a gun. It is 
within the confines of the Second Amendment. It just expands the 
already existing background checks to include commercial sale of 
firearms across the country. No hearings, no votes.
  Instead, our friends on the other side of the aisle have their own 
gun agenda. They want to legalize silencers. They want to remove the 
restrictions on silencers. Police entities, officers, chiefs, and 
sheriffs across the country have told us that this is dangerous. It 
puts the people that we represent at risk, but that is their gun 
agenda.
  If you don't like the ideas that we have brought forward, please 
bring something forward, other than deregulating silencers, that will 
help with this epidemic that we are facing in our country.
  Thirty people a day are killed by someone using a gun.
  What are your ideas?
  Nothing. Silence.
  The only thing we have heard now is we hear from your leadership that 
we are not going to discuss policy in regard to gun violence 
prevention.
  Well, that is why we came to Congress. That is why every one of us 
ran for Congress, to work on policy. That is why our constituents sent 
us to Congress, to vote on policy.
  But on the heels of 59 people being murdered the day before 
yesterday, what are we told?
  That we are not going to do policy on gun violence prevention.
  That is not responsible.
  The bill that my friend, Mr. McGovern, talked about, my bill that he 
is a coauthor on, would establish a Select Committee, Democrats and 
Republicans, to sit down at the same table and try and find some 
solutions to help prevent gun violence, and then move that to the House 
for consideration. That is all we want.
  We want these issues to be heard. We want to be able to do our job. 
Our constituents want a vote on these issues that are important to the 
safety of every single person in the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If you have not tuned in to this debate until just these past few 
minutes, you might not know that this is the budget debate today. We 
have been prepping for the budget debate today for about 10 months now, 
and we are ready today not just with one budget, but with a variety of 
budget choices. And what is wonderful about this process is it has been 
such an open process.
  You can come down to the House floor and air absolutely any idea that 
is on your mind. That has not just been true today, Mr. Speaker, but 
that has been true throughout this entire budget process. In fact, I 
have a letter signed by literally hundreds of groups that support not 
just voting on the rule to bring the budget to the floor, but groups 
that support passing the budget as we passed it out of the House Budget 
Committee.
  Now, if my colleagues have any concerns about that, I hope they will 
come and knock on my door, Mr. Speaker, because I promise you that one 
of these groups is going to be from their part of the country.
  Certainly, in Georgia, the Georgia Chamber of Commerce is on that 
list. So our folks back home are supportive. If you are from Alabama, I 
have got Alabamans on here. If you are from Baton Rouge, I have got 
Baton Rouge. If you are from Battle Creek, I have Battle Creek, because 
what we are working on here isn't a Republican budget, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1315

  What we are working on isn't a regional budget. What we are working 
on here is the national budget for the United States of America that 
can be transformational for absolutely every citizen in absolutely 
every corner of this country.
  We have that opportunity. I think we are going to seize that 
opportunity, but we can't do it until we move this rule to get to the 
underlying bills. I encourage my colleagues to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I include in the Record letters from the UAW, the SEIU, The 
National Treasury Employees Union, AFSCME, the American Federation of 
Government Employees, and NARFE.

         International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & 
           Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW,
                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 2017.
       Dear Representative:  On behalf of the International Union, 
     United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement 
     Workers of America (UAW), I am writing to strongly urge you 
     to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the House Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 
     budget resolution. The federal budget is a moral document as 
     well as a fiscal blueprint, and H. Con. Res. 71 fails 
     spectacularly on both fronts. This draconian budget would be 
     a disaster for our economy, the middle class and our most 
     vulnerable citizens.
       The proposed budget forces working people and retirees to 
     pay for enormous tax cuts to the wealthy. Despite claims to 
     the contrary, by 2027, roughly 30 percent of households 
     earning between $50,000 and $150,000 would see an increase in 
     their taxes. H. Con. Res. 71 cuts $1.5 trillion from Medicare 
     and Medicaid and ends the programs as we know them. Medicaid 
     and Medicare are literal lifelines for many of our most 
     vulnerable citizens--especially children and the elderly. 
     Medicaid is the largest provider of nursing home and long-
     term care.
       This radical piece of legislation creates fast-track 
     procedures to implement the tax cuts that will overwhelmingly 
     benefit the wealthy and multinational corporations. The 
     average tax cut for millionaires would be $230,000 a year by 
     2027. It eliminates the estate tax, which currently only 
     applies to the top two tenths of one percent of estates, 
     giving the ultrawealthy $239 billion in tax cuts. By 2027, 
     80% of tax cuts will go to the top one percent.
       It also uses these procedures to make at least $203 billion 
     in cuts to mandatory programs that are important for working 
     families and our most vulnerable citizens. In

[[Page H7772]]

     total, this budget assumes $5.4 trillion in spending cuts. 
     Cuts of this magnitude would almost certainly lead to 
     slashing funding for Legal Services Corporation, federal 
     employee pensions, nutritional assistance infrastructure, and 
     unemployment compensation, to name a few. It also repeals the 
     Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and the Affordable Care Act.
       This budget resolution takes America in the wrong 
     direction. We have tried ``trickle down'' economics several 
     times in the past; it did not work then and it will not work 
     now. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Instead, 
     they will come at the expense of hardworking every day 
     Americans--many of whom have trouble affording basic 
     necessities today.
       We strongly urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71 and instead 
     work on a federal budget that invests in our country and 
     works for ALL Americans.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Josh Nassar,
     Legislative Director.
                                  ____



                                       SEIU Stronger Together,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 2 million members of 
     the Service Employees International Union (``SEIU''), I write 
     to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the FY18 House budget resolution. 
     This budget would further rig the system against working 
     Americans by slashing resources that help families afford 
     basic needs like healthcare, food, and education--all to pave 
     the way for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. SEIU 
     believes The People's Budget is a better way forward for 
     working families. While the House Republican budget would 
     continue to leave working families behind, The People's 
     Budget makes American workers its first priority through 
     critical investments in health care, education, and 
     infrastructure.
       The first goal of any elected representative should be to 
     improve the lives of their constituents. H. Con. Res. 71 
     fails to meet this standard. To pay for tax giveaways for the 
     wealthy and corporations, the budget resolution includes 
     reconciliation instructions that would significantly 
     undermine basic living standards for families. For example, 
     under the reconciliation instructions, committees are 
     directed to make cuts of $203 billion dollars over ten years 
     to programs that could include Medicaid, Medicare, 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and programs 
     for people with disabilities, which provide critical support 
     for millions of Americans.
       By threatening Medicaid, this budget ignores the tens of 
     thousands of people who mobilized month after month to 
     soundly reject efforts to dismantle healthcare and cut 
     Medicaid. Efforts to reduce or cap Medicaid funding put at 
     risk healthcare for 74 million Americans--including children, 
     people with disabilities, and seniors. Hospitals could be 
     forced to close or cut services, further reducing access to 
     care, especially in underserved areas. States--which must 
     balance budgets and already face fiscal pressures--would not 
     be able to make up the lost federal Medicaid dollars and 
     would likely be forced to deny coverage. Furthermore, the 
     cuts would lead to significant job loss in the healthcare 
     industry, one of the fastest growing sectors in our economy.
       In contrast, The People's Budget would focus on reforms to 
     increase access, affordability. and quality of health care by 
     building on the foundation of the Affordable Care Act 
     (``ACA''). In its entirety, it would move the nation's health 
     care system closer to achieving universal coverage, while 
     ensuring that working families would have affordable care. At 
     the same time, it would invest in developing innovative care 
     delivery models that control costs and increase quality. The 
     People's Budget would put America's health care system on the 
     right path forward.
       The House Republican budget, however, would compound the 
     proposed Medicaid cuts with potential cuts to Medicare, 
     Social Security Disability Insurance, and nutrition 
     assistance. The budget doubles down on its harm to seniors 
     and people with disabilities and further shift costs to 
     states. The cumulative impact of the deep cuts proposed in 
     this budget would force states to make drastic spending and 
     job cuts, raise taxes, or both. This budget pressure would 
     likely also trickle down to local governments in the form of 
     decreased funding to cities and counties, creating a fiscal 
     crisis in communities across the nation.
       While H. Con. Res. 71 would force Americans to make a false 
     choice between programs that are essential to their 
     communities and tax giveaways for the wealthy, The People's 
     Budget invests in American communities through a robust 
     infrastructure program and makes debt free college a reality 
     for all students--without sacrificing health care for 
     millions of Americans. The House Republican budget makes no 
     such commitment to education, and its steep cuts create the 
     potential for state budget crises that put education programs 
     and working families' futures in jeopardy. Trickle-down 
     economics have left America's middle class behind for 
     decades. It is time we turn the page towards an economy that 
     is designed for working families and aimed at improving their 
     lives.
       The proposed FY18 House Budget Resolution is a disaster for 
     America's working families. By decimating programs that 
     provide healthcare, food, housing, and education to set the 
     stage for massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, 
     this budget is an attack on our communities' quality of life. 
     We respectfully urge you to reject the proposed budget 
     resolution, and instead support The People's Budget which 
     would prioritize working families in building an economy that 
     works for everyone. We will add votes on H. Con. Res. 71 to 
     our legislative scorecard.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mary Kay Henry,
     International President.
                                  ____

                                             The National Treasury


                                              Employees Union,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 2017.
       Dear Representative: As National President of the National 
     Treasury Employees Union, I represent over 150,000 dedicated 
     federal employees at 31 agencies. I am writing to ask you to 
     VOTE NO on the House Budget Resolution, H. Con Res 71.
       The House Budget Resolution instructs the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform to produce at least $32 
     billion in cuts to programs under its jurisdiction, which are 
     federal employee benefit programs. While the Budget Committee 
     recommended sizable cuts to federal employee retirement, it 
     is important to highlight that this program has been utilized 
     in recent years to help pay for both infrastructure and 
     unemployment insurance. This was twice accomplished by 
     increasing the amount federal employees contribute toward 
     their retirement benefits, and occurred against a backdrop of 
     a multi-year pay freeze, further squeezing employee 
     paychecks. In recent years, federal employees have endured 
     compensation losses of close to $200 billion for deficit 
     reduction, from the above retirement changes and from reduced 
     pay increases in 2014, 2015, 2016, and in 2017. At a time 
     when private sector raises are averaging 3%, federal wage 
     increases continue to trail behind.
       Federal employees play a vital role for taxpayers--ensuring 
     air, water and food safety, border and national security, 
     consumer protections, and preserving our national parks, to 
     name just a few of their functions and missions. Like all 
     Americans, federal employees face ever-increasing food, 
     utility, health care, and college bills, and have rent and 
     mortgage obligations. Families will fall further behind if 
     their take-home pay is slashed or if cost-of-living 
     adjustments, similar to those made to Social Security, 
     military retirement and to veterans' benefits to keep these 
     payments whole, are removed in retirement. These further cuts 
     will also degrade morale, make it difficult for agencies to 
     recruit and retain quality employees, and will erode income 
     security for retirees.
       Additionally, I ask you to strongly oppose Representatives 
     McClintock and Walker's Amendment in the Nature of a 
     Substitute that places a severe financial burden on federal 
     employees by eviscerating federal employee compensation, and 
     further unfairly attacks worker protections and labor 
     organizations.
       On behalf of our nation's federal employees--who live and 
     work in every state and congressional district across the 
     country--serving as scientists, accountants, statisticians, 
     park rangers, and law enforcement officers, I ask you to 
     reject the cuts contemplated in the Budget Resolution, and 
     VOTE NO.
           Sincerely,
                                               Anthony M. Reardon,
     National President.
                                  ____

         American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
           Employees, AFL-CIO,
                                  Washington, DC, October 2, 2017.
     Member of the House of Representatives, 
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the 
     fiscal year (FY) 2018 budget resolution approved by the House 
     Budget Committee and scheduled to be considered by the full 
     House. This budget plan would impose considerable hardship on 
     many Americans in order to slash taxes for the wealthy and 
     corporations and to boost defense spending.
       The budget decisions made by Congress each year are vital 
     to ensuring that the economy is strong and that our 
     communities are safe and prosperous. Yet, this budget 
     completely undercuts responsibility for shared prosperity by 
     applying the same misguided priorities proposed by President 
     Trump. It sets woefully inadequate spending levels for 
     critical public services and cuts over a trillion dollars 
     from non-defense discretionary spending (NDD), in order to 
     significantly boost defense spending and provide massive tax 
     giveaways to wealthy individuals and large corporations.
       The budget slashes $5.7 trillion over 10 years including 
     $1.3 trillion from NDD programs that have already been 
     compromised by austere budget caps. FY 2018 statutory caps 
     lower funding for NDD programs by 17 percent adjusted for 
     inflation below FY 2010, and the House budget cuts this by an 
     additional $5 billion. The additional cuts proposed in the 
     House budget would weaken public services that all Americans 
     rely on, create massive budget problems for states, and lead 
     to enormous job losses. It would force dramatic cuts in, 
     education, job training, federal employee pensions, and 
     nutritional assistance. Over 10 years, the budget cuts $4.4 
     trillion from entitlement programs, such as, Medicare and 
     Medicaid, including at least $203 billion in entitlement cuts 
     to be

[[Page H7773]]

     made through the ``fast track'' reconciliation process. As a 
     result, safety-net programs that millions rely upon are once 
     again a target, further shifting enormous and unsustainable 
     costs to the elderly, disabled, students and states.
       Rather than increasing revenues for investment that creates 
     jobs and spurs economic growth, the proposed budget creates a 
     fast-track process for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit 
     corporations and the wealthy. In fact, according to the 
     nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the Trump/GOP tax cut would 
     largely benefit the richest 1 percent. The budget also relies 
     on the gimmicks of dynamic scoring and sham accounting, 
     hiding the true cost of unnecessary and harmful tax cuts.
       The budget approved by the House Budget Committee would 
     hurt families, kill job growth and send the economy into a 
     downward tailspin. I strongly urge you to oppose. H. Con. 
     Res. 71, the proposed 2018 concurrent budget resolution.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Scott Frey,
     Director of Federal Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                            American Federation of


                                Government Employees, AFL-CIO,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Federation 
     of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, which represents over 
     700,000 federal employees across the country, I strongly urge 
     you to oppose any FY 2018 budget resolution proposal that 
     includes reconciliation instructions to the Oversight and 
     Government Reform Committee (OGR) requiring cuts within its 
     jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by $32 billion for the FY 
     2018-2027 period, when the House considers various FY 2018 
     budget proposals during the week of October 2, 2017. These 
     cuts would target federal employee retirement benefits, as 
     that is the only substantial mandatory spending within OGR's 
     jurisdiction.
       Such an approach would be consistent with the Senate Budget 
     Committee's FY 2018 budget resolution proposal that excludes 
     reconciliation instructions that would result in cutting 
     federal employee retirement benefits. Indeed, the Senate 
     version only includes reconciliation instructions to two 
     committees: the $1.5 trillion allowance for net tax cuts 
     under the Finance Committee's jurisdiction and a $1 billion, 
     10-year deficit cut instruction to the Energy and Natural 
     Resources Committee which could open up a portion of Alaska's 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration.
       AFGE opposes the House Budget Committee's FY 2018 budget 
     resolution's reconciliation instructions to the Oversight and 
     Government Reform Committee to cut federal employee 
     retirement benefits by $32 billion for the FY 2018-2027 
     period. We believe this budget reconciliation instruction 
     would help rip away any sense of financial security that 
     federal employees currently have.
       As you know, the House Budget Committee budget report 
     included recommendations that would:
       Require federal employees, including Members of Congress 
     and their staffs, to make greater contributions to their own 
     defined benefit retirement plans.
       Eliminate the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) 
     supplemental annuity payments to federal employees who retire 
     before age 62, such as law enforcement officers and federal 
     firefighters.
       Transition new federal employees to a defined contribution 
     retirement system. (The existing Thrift Savings Plan under 
     FERS is a defined contribution retirement plan.)
       These proposed federal retirement cuts of S32 billion over 
     ten years would be on top of the $182 billion in cuts to pay 
     and benefits that federal employees have experienced since 
     2011. Those pay and benefit cuts included: a three-year pay 
     freeze (2011, 2012, 2013), three years of reduced pay 
     increases (2014, 2015, 2016), unpaid furlough days because of 
     the 2013 sequestration, and two increases in retirement 
     contributions for new hires (2012 and 2013).
       It is important to view the House Budget Committee's FY 
     2018 budget proposal to cut federal employee retirement 
     benefits in the proper context. The federal employee 
     retirement systems (FERS and CSRS) have played no role 
     whatsoever in the creation of the federal budget deficit. In 
     addition, increasing federal employees' contributions to 
     their defined benefit retirement plans would decrease 
     consumer demand and thereby adversely impact the American 
     economy.
       Thank you for your consideration of our request.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Thomas S. Kahn,
     Director, Legislative Affairs.
                                  ____

                                       National Active and Retired


                                Federal Employees Association,

                                  Alexandria, VA, October 3, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Active and 
     Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), I write to ask 
     you to oppose the inclusion of reconciliation instructions in 
     any budget resolution that target federal retirement and/or 
     health benefits considered by the full House of 
     Representatives.
       The House Budget Committee passed, and the House is 
     expected to consider, a budget resolution containing 
     reconciliation instructions calling for at least $32 billion 
     in cuts to mandatory spending under the jurisdiction of the 
     House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (OGR). 
     Such instructions directly target the hard-earned retirement 
     and health benefits of federal and postal workers and 
     retirees, as these benefits constitute the only substantial 
     mandatory spending under OGR's jurisdiction.
       Proposals to meet the $32 billion in savings range from bad 
     to worse--from imposing a ``retirement tax'' on current 
     federal and postal employees by raising payroll contributions 
     towards retirement without any benefit increase to various 
     proposals that would dramatically reduce the value of federal 
     pensions for those nearing--or even in--retirement. These are 
     neither fair nor prudent policies, yet any budget resolution 
     containing reconciliation instructions for OGR endorses them 
     prior to any significant evaluation.
       The upcoming budget resolution is being used to set the 
     stage for advancing tax reform that proponents argue provides 
     a break to hard-working, middle-class Americans. 
     Reconciliation instructions that target hard-working, middle 
     class federal and postal workers are diametrically opposed to 
     that goal and undermine a key argument as the basis of 
     comprehensive tax reform.
       For these reasons, I ask you to oppose any budget 
     resolution that contains substantial reconciliation 
     instructions to the House Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Richard Thissen,
                                                National President

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleague from 
Georgia, thanks for reminding us that the Republicans have been working 
on the budget for 10 months; but according to your own Republican 
Budget Committee website, the budget was supposed to be presented and 
finished by April 15, so you are a little late.
  In any event, I also want to remind the gentleman, because I know he 
is on the Rules Committee, so I know he knows this, that the rule sets 
the agenda for the House. Yes, if one of the things that the 
Republicans want to bring up is their terrible budget, that is fine. 
You can do that. But the rule can also be an opportunity for us to 
bring up the bill that Mr. Thompson has offered, to set up this 
commission to deal with gun violence. We can do both.
  You can walk and you can chew gum at the same time. This is not a 
radical idea. But this is our only way to be able to bring something to 
the floor, because the leadership of this House has said no to 
everything. They have said no to everything. We can't get hearings. We 
can't get votes. We can't get debates. We get nothing.
  Don't be startled by us trying to defeat the previous question. It is 
a perfectly legitimate way to try to expand the agenda, and I hope that 
some of our Republican friends will vote with us to defeat the previous 
question. We can still do the budget, but we can also do the Thompson 
bill as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. 
Blunt Rochester).
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and fellow member 
of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. McGovern, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 71, the 
Republicans' proposed budget. This plan would make extreme and 
irresponsible cuts to domestic spending programs and weaken our 
Nation's social safety net.
  We should be proposing a budget that provides for real economic 
growth. We should be strengthening programs that help young Americans 
access higher education, increasing infrastructure funding, and 
investing in our Nation's roads and bridges. We should be focused on 
vision, aspiration, a budget reflective of our great Nation and the 
great things we can do.
  This budget instructs my friend from Massachusetts and my committee 
to find $10 billion in cuts to agriculture programs over the next 10 
years. This decrease will affect our ability to fund essential USDA 
programs across our country in every congressional district. These are 
programs that farmers, schoolchildren, families, communities, and 
Americans rely on.
  Where will we be forced to take the money from? Rural development? 
conservation programs? our already insufficient nutrition programs? 
resources for schools?
  At a time when spending on fighting wildfires has surpassed previous 
records, will we cut that budget?
  This budget and accompanying tax plan does not put us on strong 
fiscal

[[Page H7774]]

ground either. Many people don't realize the significance of the 
agricultural industry in Delaware. Our State is filled with family 
farmers that produce specialty crops, commodities. Delaware has the 
highest number of chickens per capita--300--of any State in the Nation. 
Many of these farmers rely on the very programs that we will be forced 
to undermine if these cuts are realized, and that hurts all Americans.
  Access to food is not just a farmer's issue; it will affect rural 
communities, urban communities, and all of us. This is not a 
responsible way to govern.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts 
that I have no further speakers remaining. I would be happy to close 
when the gentleman is prepared.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  I just want to tell my colleague from Georgia, if he hasn't read what 
we are trying to propose here, we are suggesting that they bring up the 
Thompson bill to the floor under an open rule, and even get a motion to 
recommit, but under an open rule. Take us up on this offer because we 
have had no open rules in this Congress. Try it; you might like it. It 
might be contagious. We might see more open rules where Democrats, 
Republicans, liberals, and conservatives can offer their ideas. We 
suggest they bring it up under an open rule.
  I would urge all of my colleagues to think about that before they 
cast their vote on defeating the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I began by saying the frustration I have with this place 
is that we either do nothing or we make things worse for people. Going 
back to this issue on creating a commission to deal with gun violence, 
there are a lot of things I would like to do, but maybe this is a way 
to get some bipartisan buy-in to actually try and figure out how to 
respond to this epidemic of gun violence.
  There have been 26 bills on gun safety introduced in this Congress 
sponsored by Democrats and Republicans. I include that list in the 
Record.

                 Gun Safety Bills in the 115th Congress

       1. H. Res. 367 Establishing the Select Committee on Gun 
     Violence Prevention.
       2. H.R. 2841 Title: Disarm Hate Act
       3. H. Res. 361 Supporting the goals and ideals of 
     ``National Gun Violence Awareness Day'' and ``National Gun 
     Violence Awareness Month''.
       4. H.R. 57 Accidental Firearms Transfers Reporting Act of 
     2017
       5. H.R. 62 Gun Violence Reduction Resources Act of 2017 
     (200 additional ATF Agents)
       6. H.R. 1982 To authorize funding to increase access to 
     mental health care treatment to reduce gun violence
       7. H.R. 370 Amending the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives to require that a standing committee (or 
     subcommittee thereof) hearing be held whenever there is a 
     moment of silence in the House for a tragedy involving gun 
     violence
       8. H.R. 630 National Statistics on Deadly Force 
     Transparency Act of 2017
       9. H.R. 445 Buyback Our Safety Act (gun buyback program)
       10. H.R. 1079 Campus Gun Policy Transparency Act
       11. H.R. 163 Gun Manufacturers Accountability Act
       12. H.R. 2033 Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act
       13. H.R. 3013 Help Communities Fight Violent Crime Act
       14. H.R. 1111 Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2017
       15. H. Res. 90 Expressing the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that gun violence is a public health issue 
     and Congress should enact by the end of the 115th Congress 
     comprehensive Federal legislation that protects the Second 
     Amendment and keeps communities safe and healthy, including 
     expanding enforceable background checks for all commercial 
     gun sales, improving the mental health system in the United 
     States, and making gun trafficking and straw purchasing a 
     Federal crime.
       16. H.R. 1475 Title: Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2017
       17. H.R. 1612 Title: Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2017
       18. H.R. 1708 Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2017 
     (insurance for gun owners)
       19. H.R. 1832 To authorize the appropriation of funds to 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting 
     or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence 
     prevention.
       20. H.R. 2380 Handgun Trigger Safety Act of 2017
       21. H.R. 1832 To authorize the appropriation of funds to 
     the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting 
     or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence 
     prevention.
       22. H.R. 1478 Gun Violence Research Act
       23. H.R. 3613 Safer Neighborhoods Gun Buyback Act of 2017
       24. H.R. 3361 SECURE Firearm Storage Act
       25. King-Thompson Background Check Bill (closes gun show 
     and Charleston loopholes, not yet reintroduced)
       26. No Fly No Buy (not yet reintroduced)

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, people have their ideas. Some of them are 
maybe not so good ideas; some of them may be very good ideas. But let's 
begin to talk about what our response should be. That is at least doing 
something. That is better than a moment of silence or offering your 
thoughts and prayers to people who were victims in this terrible latest 
massacre.
  We have got to do something, and nothing is no longer sufficient. We 
can't keep on doing that. People are horrified that Congress seems 
indifferent. We can't even have a hearing on this issue, never mind a 
debate on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
we can bring up the Thompson bill, and maybe we can start coming 
together and coming up with some ideas that might save some lives. That 
is the least we can do.
  Mr. Speaker, to my other point that we either do nothing or you guys 
do things that make life worse for people, it brings us to the budget. 
This budget basically, in my opinion, is a cruel budget that targets, 
disproportionately, those who are poor and those who are in the middle 
class.
  It is astounding to me where some of the savings are sought. The idea 
that you would cut SNAP by $164 billion, a program that provides food 
to people; a program where 67 percent of the people on the benefit are 
children, are senior citizens, or people who are disabled; a program 
where those who can work, the majority of them work, but they earn so 
little in the workforce that they still qualify for that program. You 
want to take that benefit away, a benefit that is $1.40 per person per 
meal.
  Come on. What are people thinking when they make those kinds of 
suggestions?
  By the way, we all know what this is. It is basically a pretext to 
move forward on your tax cut plan, which benefits Donald Trump, Donald 
Trump's family, and Donald Trump's friends.
  This idea that somehow this would be deficit neutral is laughable. 
The OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, stated: ``If we simply look at this as 
being deficit neutral, you're never going to get the type of tax reform 
and tax reductions'' that you guys are looking for. That is the former 
colleague and the OMB Director.
  So we all know what is going on here. But people ought to think long 
and hard before they cast their vote for this Republican budget. 
Budgets basically indicate what we value, what we think is important.
  I have got to tell you, I just don't believe that if people read this 
budget, that a majority of my friends, we have disagreements on lots of 
issues, but I just don't believe that deep in your heart you actually 
believe this stuff. I mean, this is offensive.
  We ought to be talking about lifting people up and not putting them 
down. We ought to be talking about all of the citizens of this country 
with respect and treating them with dignity. We ought not treat people 
who are in poverty as if somehow they are invisible, and that is what 
this budget does.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote down this Republican 
budget. I urge them to defeat the previous question so we can bring up, 
under an open rule--under and open rule, which nobody in this Congress 
has seen--a bill that would allow us to create a commission, a 
bipartisan commission to examine gun violence.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what I love most about budget day is the fact that we do 
get to talk about our competing ideas. I do reject some of the 
implications that we have heard that what we are talking about is 
whether we love people or not. That is actually not the debate today.
  I want to stipulate that I know the men and women of this Chamber on 
a personal basis, and each and every one of them that I know personally 
loves and cares for their constituency back home. The debate that we 
have is not whether we love people; it is how to love people best.

[[Page H7775]]

  Do you love people best by giving them a check or giving them a job? 
That is a legitimate debate.
  Do you love people best by leaving their children with them or taking 
their children away from them? That is a legitimate debate.
  I believe in families. I believe in the dignity of work. I want to 
have those debates.
  I think we do ourselves a disservice when we describe what is going 
on here today on the floor of the House as anything other than our 
absolute legal and governmental responsibility to pass a budget for the 
United States of America. Wherever you sit on the continuum, the 
political continuum, the economic continuum, the regional continuum, 
there is a budget for you today.
  If what you believe, Mr. Speaker, is that the problems we have in 
this country are because taxes are not high enough, there is going to 
be a Democratic substitute coming out of the Budget Committee that will 
raise taxes about $2.4 trillion. If you think taxes are too low, we can 
raise them $2.4 trillion. That budget never balances. That budget never 
stops borrowing from our children and our grandchildren. That budget 
never stops mortgaging America's future. But it is a legitimate debate 
because folks are taking those funds and they are investing them in 
America. They are prioritizing that investment over balancing.
  If you believe $2.4 trillion is not enough, Mr. Speaker, we will have 
a budget from the Congressional Black Caucus today that will raise 
taxes by $4.2 trillion. We can raise taxes by $4.2 trillion. Again, 
that budget never balances. It spends all that money and more, but it 
is a legitimate debate about where those dollars come from and where 
those dollars are going. I am glad we are going to be able to have it.
  If raising taxes by $4.2 trillion isn't enough for you, Mr. Speaker, 
we have the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget on the floor. It 
raises taxes by just over $10 trillion. Again, the budget never 
balances. It spends all of that money and more and continues to borrow 
from our children and grandchildren, but it is a legitimate debate and 
it is a conversation worth having. I am proud that the Rules Committee 
made that debate in order.

  To describe what is happening on the floor of the House today, Mr. 
Speaker, as anything other than what is exactly expected of this 
institution is to do us all a disservice.
  I talked about making taxes higher. Let me talk a second about making 
taxes lower.
  I talked to some friends back home; I talk to constituents; I talk to 
folks for whom I work, and some of them might say: ``Rob, I have enough 
to feed my family, and if it means paying down the debt and deficit, I 
am willing to pay a little bit more.'' Other members in the community, 
Mr. Speaker, say: ``For Pete's sake, I am trying to grow a business 
here, Rob. I am trying to employ your friends and neighbors. I am 
trying to keep the community working. I am plowing everything I have 
back into the business. If I don't have to pay as much in taxes, I am 
going to be able to hire more people.''
  The Republican budget, Mr. Speaker, takes a shot at once-in-a-
generation tax reform--once in a generation. This isn't what we talked 
about last year or the year before that or the year before that. This 
is a conversation we have not had since Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill 
had it in 1986. This is a conversation that we have not had since 
America slipped from number one in the world to almost last in the 
industrialized world in terms of tax competitiveness. This is a 
conversation that America has longed for and that we can deliver today.
  Mr. Speaker, let's have these debates about what our priorities are. 
Let's have these debates about whether or not we can do better. At the 
end of the day, let's agree that we, in fact, can do better, that our 
bosses back home expect us to do better, and that by supporting this 
rule and supporting one of the underlying budgets, we, in fact, will do 
better.
  I encourage my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, support this rule, begin this 
debate. Let's pass this budget. Let's fulfill our promises. Let's make 
the difference that we all came here to make.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 553 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. 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 resolution 
     (H. Res. 367) to establish the Select Committee on Gun 
     Violence Prevention. The first reading of the resolution 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the resolution are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the resolution and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Rules. After general 
     debate the resolution shall be considered for amendment under 
     the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions 
     in the resolution are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the resolution for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question 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 resolution, 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 
     resolution.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 367.
                                  ____


        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.

[[Page H7776]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. 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 231, 
nays 189, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 551]

                               YEAS--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     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
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     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
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     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
     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
     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)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Amodei
     Bridenstine
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Kihuen
     Long
     Loudermilk
     McCarthy
     Palmer
     Pelosi
     Poe (TX)
     Rosen
     Scalise
     Titu

                              {time}  1351

  Messrs. GRIJALVA and HOYER changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. FITZPATRICK changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 188, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 552]

                               AYES--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     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
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     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
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     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
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici

[[Page H7777]]


     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     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
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Amodei
     Bridenstine
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Hultgren
     Kihuen
     Long
     Loudermilk
     McCarthy
     Rosen
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Scott, David
     Titus

                              {time}  1359

  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.

                          ____________________