[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 171 (Tuesday, October 24, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8086-H8096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 469, SUNSHINE FOR REGULATIONS AND
REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 732, STOP SETTLEMENT SLUSH FUNDS ACT OF 2017
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 577 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 577
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 469) to impose certain limitations on consent
decrees and settlement agreements by agencies that require
the agencies to take regulatory action in accordance with the
terms thereof, and for other purposes. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-34. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in part A of 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, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All
points of order against such amendments are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to
[[Page H8087]]
clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 732) to limit donations
made pursuant to settlement agreements to which the United
States is a party, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. The amendments recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as
amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such further amendment may be offered only
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and any further amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on House Resolution 577, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule
forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for
consideration of H.R. 469, the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory
Decrees and Settlements Act, and H.R. 732, the Stop Settlement Slush
Funds Act.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for each of
the bills under consideration, and also provides for a motion to
recommit on both bills. Additionally, the rule makes in order six
amendments to each bill, respectively, representing ideas from Members
on both sides of the aisle.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from Judiciary
Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Representative Jamie Raskin. In
addition to the discussion of the underlying legislation at the Rules
Committee, I previously joined my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee
in a robust debate of the major components of these bills at Judiciary
markups earlier this year.
I introduced H.R. 469 to address a problem that, unfortunately, has
become all too common: the practice of regulating behind closed doors
and absent public input through what is known as sue and settle
agreements.
H.R. 469 also includes the Judgment Fund Transparency Act, introduced
by Representative Chris Stewart, and the Article I Amicus and
Intervention Act, introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob
Goodlatte.
The rule also provides for consideration of the Stop Settlement Slush
Funds Act, which was introduced after an extensive investigation by the
House Judiciary Committee found that the Department of Justice was
systemically circumventing Congress and directing settlement money to
activist groups.
The legislation provided for by today's rule strengthens the balance
of power and Congress' Article I authority, which we have allowed
executive agencies to erode over time.
Regardless of the political party in power, Congress has a
constitutional obligation to carry out its duties and ensure that the
legislative branch writes the law. When Congress fulfills its role as
intended, the Federal Government is more responsive to the needs of the
electorate and more accountable to our citizenry.
My legislation, the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees
and Settlements Act, otherwise known as sue and settle, addresses the
problem of regulation through litigation. We have seen this problem
explode in recent years, particularly under the previous
administration.
Mr. Speaker, I could offer you dozens of examples of this abuse, yet
my time would expire long before I could list them all. A few
particularly notable examples, however, highlight the enormous costs
and burdens that regulation through litigation can impose on
unsuspecting Americans.
The infamous Utility MACT and Boiler MACT rules resulted from sue and
settle cases. They carry price tags of $9.6 billion and $3 billion in
costs and compliance, respectively.
The Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Act rules boast a whopping $18 billion
in compliance costs. These rules also resulted from covert sue and
settle maneuvers.
I don't think it is fair to ask hardworking job creators, farmers,
and ranchers of northeast Georgia--or anywhere in this Nation, for that
matter--to foot the bills for policy that bureaucrats secretly put in
place.
I am sad to report that the prevalence of these sue and settlement
agreements have only grown in recent years. The second term of the
previous administration brought us 77 sue and settle cases related to
the Clean Air Act. By comparison, President Clinton's second term
witnessed 27 sue and settle cases, and President Bush's second term saw
28 such cases.
But let me also say just right there, Mr. Speaker, that it doesn't
matter which administration or which party is in the White House. This
is not a bill that is designed to go for one party or another. It is
simply saying that there is an Article I of the Constitution, and that
is the legislative branch that writes the laws, and then the executive
is to enforce the laws, not write them. I want to make it clear--and I
know it is going to be talked about that this is not, but I do want to
make it clear that this is for any administration.
The Obama administration's penchant for circumventing Congress and
its constitutional authority was incredible, and its legacy has
endured. The weight of these improper agreements hangs around the necks
of American businesses, employees, farmers, and ranchers.
Fortunately, the Trump administration has recognized the impropriety
of this practice and is taking steps to start curbing abuse of sue and
settle agreements and the Federal rulemaking process. In fact, EPA
Administrator Scott Pruitt recently issued a directive to increase
public engagement in policymaking at the EPA.
This is a critical step and one that I applaud, but it doesn't negate
the need for Congress to act decisively. In fact, it only highlights
it. Congress has a right and an obligation to defend its constitutional
prerogatives.
Like the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulator Decrees and
Settlements Act, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act will make our
government more accountable to the people by providing real
transparency. The Judgment Fund Transparency Act is based upon the
principle that the American people have the right to know how their
government is spending their hard-earned tax dollars.
The Judgment Fund was created over 50 years ago as a way to provide
for efficient payment of lawful claims against the U.S., but it has
become a permanent appropriation shrouded in secrecy.
While many payments out of the Judgment Fund are both legitimate and
appropriate, the fund remains the subject of egregious abuse. For
example, last year, the administration paid Iran $1.3 billion out of
the Judgment Fund--primarily in the form of foreign currency--as a
payment for the interest that had accrued on Iranian assets
[[Page H8088]]
that had been frozen because Iran sponsors terrorism without shame. As
you might imagine, the Obama administration stonewalled congressional
efforts to investigate those payments.
This much-needed legislation would not only ensure that such payments
could not be hidden from Congress and the Americans they represents, it
outright prohibits payments to state sponsors of terrorism and foreign
terrorist organizations, which should be one of the least controversial
actions ever to grace the floor of this House.
As I have said before, transparency and accountability are the best
remedies for a government run amuck. Title III of H.R. 469, Chairman
Goodlatte's legislation, the Article I Amicus and Intervention Act,
will further strengthen Congress' powers under Article I and, in doing
so, will help restore checks and balances between the three branches of
government.
When the Federal courts are deciding important matters regarding the
Constitution, congressional powers, and Federal law, it is critical
that Congress have the opportunity, should it deem the action
necessary, to file an amicus or otherwise intervene in pending
litigation.
The need for this legislation is compounded when, as was the case
during the previous administration, the executive branch decides not to
defend constitutionality of Federal law. This leads our adversarial
legal system without anyone to litigate significant cases and shifts
interpretation of the Constitution from the courts to the executive
branch.
This provision will ensure that the House, like the Senate, has a
statutory right to file amicus briefs or intervene when Congress'
powers and responsibilities are called into question.
The Article I Amicus and Intervention Act, like the other bills
contained in this measure, is an important step toward restoring
government transparency, balance, and accountability.
Mr. Speaker, you might be able to detect a theme that is emerging
here today. My colleagues and I are working hard to ensure the American
people have a government by the people and for the people. We are
working to restore the balance of powers that our forefathers put into
place and to ensure that the executive overreach that was the hallmark
of the previous administration won't be able to undermine transparency
in the future.
In that vein, the rule also provides for consideration of the Stop
Settlement Slush Funds Act. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act
prevents the Department of Justice from subverting Congress' power of
the purse by prohibiting settlements that direct payments to a
nonvictim third party. Again, the misdirection of funds to irrelevant
third parties is a problem that we have seen grow and that must be
addressed.
Under the previous administration, the Department of Justice funneled
nonvictim third party groups as much as $880 million. The Department of
Justice did this by collecting money from parties who had broken the
law and then using that money to create a slush fund for special
interest groups rather than sending the money to victims of illicit
activity.
The Department of Justice allowed the ``donations'' required under
the settlements to count as double credit against defendants' payment
obligations. Let me say that again. The Department of Justice allowed
the ``donations'' required under the settlements to count as double
credit against defendants' payment obligations.
Interestingly, in some settlements under the previous administration,
credit for direct relief to consumers was counted only as dollar for
dollar, indicating the importance the Department of Justice places on
directing these funds to nonvictim third party groups.
The Department of Justice's policy move actually incentivized the
funneling of money to nonvictim groups rather than the people who were
injured. The slush fund scheme actually disadvantaged victims in favor
of special interests.
{time} 1230
For example, the Department of Justice negotiated settlement
agreements to the tune of millions of dollars with major banks for
misleading investors over mortgage-backed securities.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
October 24, 2017, on page H8088, the following appeared: Mr.
COLLINS of Georgia. For example, the Department of Justice
negotiated settlement agreements to the tune of millions of
dollars with major banks for misleading investors over mortgage-
backed securities.
The online version has been corrected to read: For example, the
Department of Justice negotiated settlement agreements to the tune
of millions of dollars with major banks for misleading investors
over mortgage-backed securities.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Then the Department of Justice said that banks or other parties that
it settled with could meet some of their settlement obligations by
making, again, donations to certain groups. The money went to these
groups partially under the guise that those groups would provide
services to the aggrieved parties.
In reality, this practice directs funds away from the victims and
allows the Department of Justice to steer money to nonvictim third-
party groups, usually politically motivated organizations.
Additionally, the parties that receive the funds, these nonvictim
third-party organizations, aren't a part of the case at all. This means
that they don't represent the victims and aren't subject to
congressional oversight for the funds they receive. Even if most of
these groups weren't activist groups, which many were, this scenario
should concern everyone, Mr. Speaker. In fact, many of these groups are
political or ideological in nature.
Under the previous administration, in the mortgage settlement cases,
groups like the National Council of La Raza received more than $1
million in Department of Housing and Urban Development grants under
these settlements.
I don't know about you, but I think when the DOJ requires a
settlement, the funds should go to the victims involved in the case,
including victims back home in northeast Georgia. If the victims cannot
be found or if the problem cannot be directly rectified, then the
settlement funds should go to the Treasury so that Congress, elected by
individual Americans, can appropriately decide how to use them.
I don't think it is acceptable to shortchange victims to benefit
special interest and politically friendly third-party organizations.
It is time to reassert congressional authority over this process so
that hardworking folks are protected from more executive overreach and
so that we can restore the separation of powers outlined in the
Constitution.
I am here fighting to make sure that the Federal Government puts the
hardworking Georgians whom I represent and the rest of the citizens of
the United States--not special interests--first.
These bills help ensure that the American citizens have their voices
heard, that they regain input into the system, and that the Federal
Government is more transparent, accountable, and responsive to their
needs.
I would encourage others who share that goal to support this rule and
the underlying bills.
Again, as you look ahead for this, the thing that hopefully came out
in this is that this is an Article I issue. This is simply about, over
time, that has given a way from us in this body that we have done, that
it is now time to reassess that, especially in light of the needs of
the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to debate the rule for consideration of
H.R. 469, the Congressional Article I Powers Strengthening Act; and
H.R. 732, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, two Judiciary bills that
are deficient in both process and in substance.
First, let me address the Congressional Article I Powers and
Strengthening Act, a bill that my Republican friends purport will
provide commonsense solutions to curbing regulatory abuse, but will, in
fact, undermine the ability of Federal regulators to protect the health
and safety of Americans, threaten the privacy of victims of government
misconduct, and intrude on the Department of Justice's enforcement
discretion, raising serious separation of powers concerns.
Mr. Speaker, just as appalling as the substance of this bill is the
process by which we are considering it and many other bills deriving
from the Judiciary Committee lately.
This bill is actually three Judiciary Committee bills wrapped in one
Rules Committee print. However, one of the bills, H.R. 4070, was
introduced last week without a hearing, without a markup, without
notice to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, and without
consultation with constitutional
[[Page H8089]]
lawyers and experts and interested citizens.
This process is truly a slap in the face of regular order. A bill
that has zero input from members on the Judiciary Committee or been the
subject of any thoughtful discussion is suddenly on the House floor for
a vote.
Interestingly, when I listened to my friend from Georgia, who I know
is particularly serious about his approaches to legislation, I sat here
and then I looked into the gallery, and there were 20 people who were
seated there. I didn't see on the faces of those that I could see any
understanding of one thing that he said, not because of the speed of
his manner of speech, but because of the complexity of issues that give
rise to us.
Among the things he said was transparency, accountability, and
wanting to make sure that we, this body, exercise our prerogative with
reference to for the people, by the people, and of the people.
I would imagine that people listening to this debate would want to
believe that half of this body, half of the people who are represented
in this country had input to this legislation. Let me tell you, People,
they had none, zero. No Democrat had any input to this measure that I
just discussed.
How can we expect Members of this body, let alone the American
people, to have any idea as to what we are voting on with this measure
and what its impact will be when it seems the path it took to getting a
vote is based solely on the whim of the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee?
Unfortunately, there is total disregard for even a semblance of
regular order. That term is utilized a lot here, and, again, the
American people, many of them, don't have a clue what we are talking
about.
What we are talking about, basically, is matters that go to
committees have hearings, have both sides have input, have witnesses
who are experts or have responsibilities in that arena, and then the
matter comes to the Rules Committee and is granted a bill of substance
to come here to the floor, and that process is generally known by those
of us with Congress-speak as regular order.
It is nothing new for the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee,
which has been the worst offender of regular order, when it comes to
pushing for a closed process.
During the 115th Congress, bills coming to the floor from the
Judiciary Committee were granted the most closed rules of any of the
committees in this august body, eight closed rules. There is no
committee chair in this Congress who has requested the Republican-
controlled Rules Committee grant more closed rules than the chairman of
the Judiciary Committee.
Indeed, this departure from a process that we refer to as regular
order, from a process that allows input from outside experts and other
witnesses, a process that allows both parties, if there is a hearing,
to ask questions of those witnesses, this departure is astounding, and
that is within the context of this Congress, which, in just the first
10 months, will soon become the most closed Congress in history.
I remember when I ran for office in 1992, I appeared a lot on radio
stations. In many of those appearances, the opposition, not just my
opponent, but the major party, had begun a drumbeat of the Democrats
are not following regular order, they are having closed rules.
Little did I know in 1992, nor did I aspire when I came here, to be
on the Rules Committee to have a better understanding, but I kept
listening to this closed rule argument, and many persons lost their
elections because of that.
If there is ever a time for us to address it, it would be now. We
have that prerogative to be able to open up this process so that all
Members can be involved.
When this Congress began, the distinguished Speaker of this body
promised an open and transparent House. He called for a return to
regular order. After what we have seen over the last 10 months, I
shudder to think what the distinguished Speaker considers a closed
process.
I might add, the next tier under closed is structured rules, which we
are here today on, which, yet again, limits the number of activities by
others, amendments, and other processes that would be appropriate.
Yesterday, when my colleague and I were in the Rules Committee, we
had before us matters that were germane to this issue that were denied,
that could have, under an open process, been made in order so that we
could discuss it here today.
This Republican process, shutting out the voice and input of
representatives of nearly half the country, is not just an affront to
normal House procedure, which it is, it is downright undemocratic and
emblematic of the Republican majority's true inability to govern.
Mr. Speaker, I turn to the second bill encompassed in this rule, H.R.
732, a bill as misguided and substantively unnecessary as the first
bill was lacking in process. In fact, in the last Congress, a law
professor testifying on an identical bill described it as a solution in
search of a problem.
That was as true in the last Congress as it is in this one, which is
too bad, because we do not lack in actual problems in desperate need of
sensible solutions.
H.R. 732 would prevent Federal agencies from requiring third-party
payments, such as those to charities, in settlement agreements with
entities accused of wrongdoing.
Now, there in the report pointed out by the chairman of the Rules
Committee yesterday shows the number of banks and mortgage companies
and others that have violated the law and entered into settlements with
the government for billions of dollars. Such payments, in excess of
what the victims have agreed to, and the settlements that have been
entered into and approved by judges, each one of these settlements, my
friend said these payments may have gone to politically motivated--may
be politically motivated organizations, and he cites to La Raza, which
did receive money, but so did other charitable organizations: the New
Christian Joy Full Gospel Baptist Church, the Catholic Charities of the
Archdiocese of Chicago, the Catholic Charities Financial and Housing
Counseling.
We sought yesterday while we were in the committee--I sought and
asked staff to provide for me some of the organizations that my friends
say may be politically motivated, or activists, as he referred to them,
and it is 49 pages of organizations that were available to receive
these funds, and, yes, some of them are liberal and also some of them
are conservative organizations as we know them.
Such payments to charities are a common enforcement tool in
settlements and have long been used to help provide communities with
relief from systemic harm caused by illegal behavior.
Now, for example, following the 2008 financial crisis, in some of the
settlement agreements with Wall Street banks, President Obama's
Department of Justice required banks to donate money to charities
committed to neighborhood stabilization and foreclosure prevention
efforts, and this made perfect sense.
{time} 1245
In the wake of the crisis, as many as 10 million families lost their
homes to foreclosure. Both the Government Accountability Office and the
Federal courts have long upheld this practice in settlement agreements.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, my Republican colleagues considered these
provisions to be an attempt by President Obama's administration to use,
as they say, ``a slush fund,'' to enrich, ``liberal friends,'' despite
the fact that certified charities eligible to receive these payments
encompass liberal and conservative groups alike.
They even launched an investigation which yielded no credible
evidence to substantiate their claims. Yet, despite the GAO, the
Federal courts, and a Republican-led investigation showing no
wrongdoing, we are considering this bill today to ban this longstanding
legal practice aimed at assisting communities in the wake of suffering
systemic abuse--abuse that I will underline again, and even say slowly,
hurt Democrats and Republicans.
I suppose the only question left to ask my Republican friends is, 10
months into the new administration, nearly a year after the last
election, why are they continuing to conduct
[[Page H8090]]
pointless and partisan oversight of the Obama administration?
Let me see if I can make this clear. President Obama is no longer the
President of the United States, nor is Bill Clinton or George Bush. The
President of the United States now is a new individual who we have to
deal with, and it would be helpful if we were to address some of the
matters ongoing that this particular administration is deserving of
oversight.
I know that President Obama was a useful foil for many in the
Republican Party when it came to messaging and campaigning, but he is
not the President anymore. He won his two elections. That is the past.
This bill represents nothing but the Republican majority grasping at
straws and trying their best to turn their oversight attention away
from doing their duty and providing oversight of the Trump
administration.
Today, two new inquiries, I don't even have the time or wouldn't take
the time to go into the inquiries that ain't going nowhere, have been
announced, certainly as a distraction to many of the negatives that
come out by virtue of this particular Congress not having done
anything. It is the do-nothing Congress on steroids.
If there was ever an administration that needed rigorous oversight,
it is the current one. In just 10 months, we have had reports of
gratuitous use of private jets, the use of private email servers by
senior staff, and I might add that one of those things identified today
is they are going to go after Hillary or have oversight hearings on
Hillary Clinton's emails. Enough already. Hillary Clinton lost her
election, and lost with the emails as well, but we have current staff
who are using private email servers. Given your history, should that
not at least pique your oversight interest?
Spending tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars to use Mar-a-Lago for
official meetings, waste, cronyism, the list goes on and on and on. How
about oversight of a little, old company in Montana that doesn't have
any successful history getting a $200 million no-bid contract in Puerto
Rico to reestablish those facilities there? Out of Montana, little, old
company, $200 million, no-bid. You got it. You go forward. You talk
about waste and cronyism. And what do we get from the Republicans?
Deafening silence.
Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that we are considering the rule for a
bill today entitled Article I Powers Strengthening Act when this
Republican Congress has shown they can't even undertake the basic
Article I duty of providing oversight of the executive. They don't need
to strengthen Article I, they need to just start doing their jobs in
the first place.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart) from the Second District. He is a
sponsor of the Judgment Fund Transparency Act.
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing up H.R.
469, which includes, as indicated, the text of my bill, the Judgment
Fund Transparency Act.
The purpose of this act is really very simple. Actually, contrary to
previous arguments, the rule of this and the intent of this is so
simple. It is simply for government transparency. This bill will go a
long way in providing our constituents and taxpayers a better idea of
how their tax dollars are spent.
Now, heaven knows, and for heaven's sake, those of us here, we
certainly know, the Federal Government isn't perfect. It is prone to
errors that can cause harm to individuals or organizations from time to
time, and when these errors are particularly egregious, the government
is sued and damages are awarded to those who are harmed.
Early on, in fact, this Congress spent a large part of its time doing
nothing but sorting through claims and making appropriations to pay
those claims. In fact, not even 100 years ago, much of this body's work
consumed only that topic, and it wasn't until 1956 that Congress
established the Judgment Fund and gave authority to the Treasury
Department to resolve these claims in ``a permanent and definite
appropriation.'' That simply has been abused.
In keeping with the law's requirement to report on the fund from time
to time, the Treasury Department files a yearly report of the Judgment
Fund with Congress, and also maintains a web page that can be searched.
Now, this sounds good. Right? But the cryptic and otherwise limited
information related to each payout has made the database almost
entirely worthless. There is no information on what the government did
wrong. There is no information on the claimant. In fact, journalists
and transparency groups revealed in the last few months that from 2009
to 2015, the government paid out more than $25 million to unnamed or
redacted recipients. A $25 million secret. We don't know who was paid,
we don't know why they were paid, and, in some circumstances, we don't
know how much they were paid.
Now, we are all familiar with the previous administration's decision
to take $1.3 billion out of the fund, convert it to cash, and deliver
it to Iran, yet this isn't the only egregious use of this fund.
Three years ago, The New York Times reported on what was likely an
illegal billion-dollar payout to thousands of farmers who had never
even sued the government. This isn't just unacceptable, it is crazy. It
is horrible government. It is the type of thing that makes people
resent the Federal Government.
This bill aims to clarify and to reduce that. It aims to clean up the
ambiguity that exists between the current law and provide much-needed
transparency. It would require the Treasury to make public any payment
from the Judgment Fund and to include very simple things that common
sense would surely demand: the name of the agency named in the
judgment, the name of the plaintiff, the amount they were paid, any
other fees such as attorneys' fees or interest, and then finally a
brief description of the facts which led to the claim.
The Judgment Fund Transparency Act may not prevent bad decisions by
all government employees or government agencies, but it will shine a
light on those decisions to the American people. This is about helping
to increase the amount of trust between the American people and a
government that they simply don't trust. We give them reasons not to
trust us. Let's bring accountability and transparency to that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes''
on passage of this crucial bill.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am ready to have my friend understand that I am
getting close to closing. I don't think I have any speakers, but I do
have words that I wish to put forward right now.
It is shameful that we would be in a position where the DACA program
is being threatened without a single thought to the consequences this
decision would have on the 800,000 young lives this program protects.
While this may appear to be off message with regard to the measures
that are before us, the minority is given an opportunity to present
what is called a previous question, and it can be on matters germane to
the thoughts of the minority and can be on any subject that they
choose. In this instance, we choose to, with the previous question,
address DACA.
Do the American people even want DACA to end? The answer is clearly
no. According to a Politico/Morning Consult poll, support for allowing
these immigrants to remain in the United States spans across party
lines: 84 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Independents, and 69
percent of Republicans think they should stay. Congress must act to
protect our DREAMers.
Mr. Speaker, here is a chance to rectify the President's decision and
restore the American people's faith in this institution.
If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment
to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan
bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are
Americans in every way except on paper.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
[[Page H8091]]
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), from Georgia's 12th Congressional
District, to speak on these issues of Article I.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support my fellow Georgian's,
Congressman Doug Collins, bill, H.R. 469.
One of the biggest complaints I hear about the Federal Government is
the lack of accountability or these backroom deals. One glaring example
of this is what is referred to as sue and settlement litigation.
Under previous administrations, left-leaning groups would sue a
Federal agency to try and enact regulatory changes without going
through the normal rulemaking process. Both parties, the Federal
Government and special interest groups, settle in court with an
already-agreed-upon deal.
Regulatory rules are then made quickly without any public notice or
the input of any other relevant parties but carry the rule of law.
These new rules are often the most burdensome and cost our businesses
billions of dollars each year. This doesn't sound like draining the
swamp to me.
H.R. 469 stops these unfair arrangements by requiring agencies to
publicly post and report to Congress on sue and settlement complaints,
consent decrees, and settlement arrangements. It also prohibits the
same-day filing of complaints and settlement agreements in cases
seeking to compel agency action.
Congressman Collins' legislation, the Sunshine for Regulations and
Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, will provide greater
accountability and transparency to the American public, while stopping
special interests from improperly influencing our Nation's regulatory
regime. We must uphold a fair and transparent regulatory process. The
American people demand this from us.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule on this
commonsense legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, earlier I mentioned that there were 49 pages--I didn't
realize how extensive it really was--of organizations that were
eligible to receive funds under the Justice Department's prerogative.
It includes organizations that did, in fact, receive these funds.
{time} 1300
They come from a wide array of organizations in our respective
communities that, in my judgment, have on-the-ground ability to be
efficient and to make sure that the expenditure of those funds benefit
those who have suffered from systemic inequities by large
organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a portion of these organizations
that were eligible to receive funds under the Justice Department's
prerogative.
Agency Name
Money Management International, Anchorage, AK.;
Neighborworks Anchorage Formerly Anchorage Neighborhood
Housing Services; Organized Community Action Programs Inc.--
Covington County; Birmingham Urban League, Inc.; Gateway
Financial Freedom/CCCS of Central Alabama; Jefferson County
Committee for Economic Opportunity; Jefferson County Housing
Authority; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of
America) Birmingham. AL; Neighborhood Housing Services of
Birmingham, Inc.; United Way of Central Alabama, Inc.; United
Way of Central Alabama, Inc.; Community Action Partnership of
North Alabama--Cullman Branch; Community Action Partnership
of North Alabama, Inc.; Community Action Agency of Northwest
Alabama, Inc.; Hale Empowerment and Revitalization
Organization (HERO); Organized Community Action Programs
Inc.--Butler County; Organized Community Action Programs
Inc.--Lowndes County; CCCS of Tennessee River Valley;
Community Action Partnership, Huntsville/Madison & Limestone
Counties. Inc.; Family Services Center, Inc.
CCCS of Mobile--Jackson; Telamon Corporation; CCCS of
Mobile; Center for Fair Housing; Mobile Housing Board; CCCS
of Alabama--Montgomery; Legal Services Alabama Inc; CCCS of
Mobile--Montrose AL; Community Action Partnership of North
Alabama--Moulton Branch; Organized Community Action Programs
Inc.--Dale County; Housing Authority of the City of Prichard;
Community Action Agency of Northwest Alabama--Franklin
County; Organized Community Action Programs Inc.--Crenshaw
County; Community Action Agency of Northwest Alabama--Colbert
County; Organized Community Action Program, Inc.; Community
Service Programs of West Alabama, Inc.; Organized Community
Action Programs Inc.--Bullock County; Credit Counseling of
Arkansas--Bentonville; Mississippi County, Arkansas Economic
Opportunity Commission, Inc.; Hope Enterprise Corporation.
Family Service Agency--CCCS; Arkansas River Valley Area
Council, Inc.; Money Management International El Dorado;
Credit Counseling of Arkansas; Crawford Sebastian Community
Development Council; Credit Counseling of Arkansas Fort
Smith; Northwest Regional Housing Authority; Southern Bancorp
Community Partners; Jonesboro Urban Renewal and Housing
Authority Housing and Community Development Organization
(JURHA HCDO; Arkansas Development Finance Authority; Better
Community Development, Inc.; Community Resources Technicians,
Inc.; Family Service Agency--CCCS; In Affordable Housing,
Incorporated; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of
America) Little Rock, AR; Southern Bancorp Community
Partners; Universal Housing Development Corporation; Credit
Counseling of Arkansas--Springdale; Southeastern Arizona
Governments Organization; Community Action Human Resources
Agency.
Housing Solutions of Northern Arizona, Inc.; Money
Management International, Inc. Flagstaff, AZ; Northern
Arizona Council of Governments; Administration of Resources
and Choices; Money Management International, Inc. Glendale,
AZ; Western Arizona Council of Governments (WACOG)--Kingman
Branch Office; Housing Counseling and Education Services;
Money Management International, Inc. Mesa, AZ; Springboard--
Mesa; Chicanos Por La Causa--Nogales; Nogales Community
Development Corporation; Chicanos Por La Causa, Phoenix; City
of Phoenix Neighborhood Services Department; Community
Housing Resources of Arizona; Desert Mission Neighborhood
Renewal; Greater Phoenix Urban League; Labor's Community
Service Agency; Money Management International Phoenix Phone
Center; Money Management International, Inc. Phoenix, AZ
Central.
NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America)
Phoenix, AZ; Neighborhood Housing Services of Phoenix; NID-
HCA Phoenix Randolph; Take Charge America; Money Management
International, Inc. Prescott, AZ; Campesinos Sin Fronteras;
Comite De Bien Estar, Inc.; Credit Advisors Foundation; Money
Management International, Inc. Phoenix, AZ--North; Housing
America Corporation; Greenpath Debt Solutions; Money
Management International, Inc. Tempe, AZ; Newtown Community
Development Corporation; Administration of Resources and
Choices; Catholic Community Services of So. Arizona, Inc. DBA
Pio Decimo Center; Chicanos Por La Causa-Tucson; Family
Housing Resources; Money Management International, Inc.
Tucson, AZ--SE; Money Management, Inc. Tuscon, AZ--NW; Old
Pueblo Housing Development, Inc.
Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc.; Southwest Fair Housing
Counsel; The Primavera Foundation, Inc.; Tucson Urban League;
Northern Arizona Council of Governments; Western Arizona
Council of Governments (WACOG); Western Arizona Council of
Governments NCOA HECM; Consumer Credit Counseling Service of
Orange County; CCCS of the North Coast; CCCS of Kern and
Tulare Counties; Community Housing Council of Kern Co.;
Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Orange County; Korean
Resource Center; Surepath Financial Solutions; Consumer
Credit Counselors of Kern and Tulare Counties; Money
Management International Chula Vista; California Rural Legal
Assistance--Coachella; Clearpoint Credit Counseling
Solutions--Commerce Branch; Catholic Charities of the East
Bay; Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO).
Money Management International Concord; National Asian
American Coalition (Formerly Known as Mabuhay Alliance);
California Rural Legal Assistance--Delano; Able Works;
Springboard--El Cajon; California Rural Legal Assistance--El
Centro; Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board--El Centro
Branch (Imperial County); Community Housing Works; Pacific
Community Services Fairfield; Consumer Credit Counseling
Service of Orange County; Money Management International
Fremont; Project Sentinel; California Rural Legal
Assistance--Fresno; Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions
Inc.--Fresno Branch; Community Housing Council of Fresno;
Housing Authority of the City of Fresno; California Rural
Legal Assistance--Gilroy; Project Sentinel; Clearpoint Credit
Counseling Solutions--Glendale Branch; Clearpoint Credit
Counseling Solutions--Granada Hills Branch.
NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America) Los
Angeles, CA; Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO);
Springboard--Hemet; Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board--
Indio Branch (Riverside County); Amador Tuolumne Community
Action Agency; Springboard--Ladera; Clearpoint Credit
Counseling Solutions--Lakewood Branch; California Rural Legal
Assistance--Lamont; Pure Hearts R Us Housing Corporation;
Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO); Tri-Valley
Housing Opportunity Center; Home Preservation and Prevention
(HPP Cares); Operation Hope Inc.--Long Beach Branch;
Springboard--Long Beach; East La Community Corporation
(ELACC); Korean Churches for Community Development; Korean
Resource Center; Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Services,
[[Page H8092]]
Inc; New Economics for Women; NID-HCA Reeves;
Operation Hope, Inc; Operation Hope, Inc.--La Branch;
Shalom Center for T.R.E.E. of Life; Thai Community
Development Corp.; Watts Century Latino Org.; West Angeles
Community Development Corp.; California Rural Legal
Assistance--Madera; California Rural Legal Assistance--
Marysville Office; Operation Hope, Inc.--Maywood Branch;
National Asian American Coalition (Formerly Known As Mabuhay
Alliance); California Rural Legal Assistance--Modesto;
Community Housing and Shelter Services; Habitat for
Humanity, Stanislaus County; Project Sentinel; Montebello
Housing Development Corp.; California Rural Legal
Assistance--Monterey; Fair Housing Council of Riverside
County, Inc.; Project Sentinel; Eden Council for Hope and
Opportunity (ECHO); Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon
Valley.
Money Management International Oakland; NACA (Neighborhood
Assistance Corporation of America) Oakland, CA; National
Association of Real Estate Brokers--Investment Division, Inc;
NID-HCA Oakland Main Branch; Operation Hope, Inc.--Oakland
Branch; The Spanish Speaking Unity Council of Alameda County,
Inc. (The Unity Council); Faith Based Community Development
Corporation; Money Management International Oceanside; Inland
Fair Housing and Mediation Board; Neighborhood Partnership
Housing Services, Inc.; Neighborhood Housing Services of
Orange County; California Rural Legal Assistance--Oxnard;
Ventura County Community Development Corporaton; Fair Housing
Council of Riverside County, Inc.; Eden Council for Hope and
Opportuntiy (ECHO); California Rural Legal Assistance--Paso
Robles; Pacific Community Services, Inc.; Operation Hope,
Inc.--Poway Branch; Hometown Community Development Corp, Dba
Homestrong USA; Housing Opportunities Collaborative--Inland
Empire Branch.
Community Housing Development Corporation of North
Richmond; Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.;
Community Connect; Fair Housing Council of Riverside County,
Inc.; Springboard--Shine Center (Latham); Springboard Non
Profit Consumer Credit Management Inc.--HPF Affiliate;
Springboard Non--Profit Consumer Credit Management, Inc.;
Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions--Sacramento Branch;
Sacramento Home Loan Counseling Center; Sacramento
Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.; California Rural Legal
Assistance--Salinas; Housing Resource Center of Monterey
County; Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions--San
Bernardino Branch; Neighborhood Housing Services of The
Inland Empire, Inc.; NID-HCA Inland Empire J. Jackson;
Bayside Community Center; Clearpoint Credit Counseling
Solutions--San Diego Branch; Community Housing Works; Housing
Opportunities Collaborative; Housing Opportunities
Collaborative--Branch for San Diego/Imperial Counties; Money
Management International San Diego.
National Asian American Coalition (Formerly Known as
Mabuhay Alliance); Navicore Solutions--San Diego, CA;
Neighborhood House Association; San Diego Urban League; Union
of Pan Asian Communities; Asian Incorporated; CCCS of San
Francisco; Consumer Credit Counseling Service of San
Francisco--HPF Affiliate; Mission Economic Development
Association (MEDA); Project Sentinel; San Francisco Housing
Development Corporation; Neighborhood Housing Services
Silicon Valley; Project Sentinel; Santa Clara County Asian
Law Alliance; Surepath Financial Solutions--San Jose; NID-HCA
San Leandro--Chambers; California Rural Legal Assistance--San
Luis Obispo; Peoples' Self Help Housing; Fair Housing of
Marin; Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions--Santa Ana
Branch.
Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Orange County;
Housing Opportunities Collaborative--Orange County Branch;
Legal Aid Society of Orange County; Orange County Fair
Housing Council, Inc.; California Rural Legal Assistance--
Santa Barbara; Project Sentinel; California Rural Legal
Assistance; California Rural Legal Assistance--Santa Maria;
Wise & Healthy Aging; California Rural Legal Assistance;
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Santa Rosa; CCCS of San
Francisco; Centro Familia Esperanza; Operation Hope Inc.--
South Gate Branch; California Rural Legal Assistance--
Stockton; Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions--Stockton
Branch; NID-HCA A. Jones; Visionary Home Builders of
California; Project Sentinel; Northern Circle Indian Housing
Authority, United Native Housing Development Corp.
City of Vacaville Department of Housing Services; Cabrillo
Economic Development Corporation; Inland Fair Housing and
Mediation Board--Victorville Branch (San Bernardino County);
CCCS of Kern and Tulare Counties; Community Services and
Employment Training, Inc. (CSET); Self Help Enterprises;
California Rural Legal Assistance--Oceanside; Surepath
Financial Solutions--Watsonville; Rural Community Assistance
Corporation; Community Resource and Housing Development
Corporation--Alamosa; City of Aurora Community Development
Division; Boulder County Housing Authority; Greenpath, Inc.;
Upper Arkansas Area Council of Governments; CCCS of Greater
Dallas--Colorado Springs; Adams County Housing Authority;
Colorado Housing and Finance Authority; Colorado Housing
Assistance Corporation; Del Norte Neighborhood Development
Corporation (NDC); Denver Housing Authority.
Greenpath, Inc.; Money Management International Denver,
Aurora Branch; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of
America) Denver, CO; NEWSED CDC; Northeast Denver Housing
Center; Southwest Improvement Council; Housing Solutions for
the Southwest; Regional Housing Alliance La Plata Homes Fund;
Brothers Redevelopment, Inc.; Greenpath Debt Solutions;
Neighbor to Neighbor; Northeast Colorado Housing, Inc.; Tri-
County Housing & Community Development Corporation; Neighbor
to Neighbor; Grand Junction Housing Authority; Greenpath Debt
Solutions; Money Management International Highlands Ranch;
Douglas County Housing Partnership; Boulder County Housing
Authority; Neighbor to Neighbor.
Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Pueblo, CO;
Neighborworks of Pueblo; Summit County Family Resource
Center; San Miguel Regional Housing Authority; Community
Resources and Housing Development Corporation; Money
Management International Westminster; Bridgeport Neighborhood
Trust; Housing Development Fund, Inc.--Bridgeport Branch;
Housing Development Fund--Danbury Branch; Financial
Counselors of America Connecticut Branch; Money Management
International East Hartford; Community Renewal Team, Inc.;
Hartford Areas Rally Together; Housing Education Resource
Center; Mutual Housing Association of Greater Hartford, Inc.;
NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America)
Hartford, CT; Urban League of Greater Hartford, Inc.; Money
Management International Milford; Neighborhood Housing
Services of New Britain, Inc.; Greater New Haven Community
Loan Fund.
Mutual Housing of South Central CT, Inc.//Neighborworks New
Horizons; Neighborhood Housing Services of New Haven;
Catholic Charities, Norwich, CT; Connecticut Housing Finance
Authority; Housing Development Fund, Inc.; Urban League of
Southern Connecticut; Neighborhood Housing Services of
Waterbury, Inc.; National Council on Aging (NCOA); Asian
American Homeownership Counseling; Carecen--Central American
Resource Center; Greater Washington Urban League; Homefree--
USA Washington DC Branch; Housing Counseling Services,
Incorporated; Latino Economic Development Corporation;
Lydia's House; Manna, Inc. Marshall Heights Community
Development Organization; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance
Corporation of America) Washington, DC; National Capacd;
National Community Reinvestment Coalition.
National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Inc.; National
Council of La Raza; National Foundation for Credit
Counseling, Inc.; Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp. DBA
Neighborworks America; NID-HCA Williams; Operation Hope,
Inc.--DC Branch; United Planning Organization; United
Planning Organization--Anacostia Center; United Planning
Organization--Petey Greene Community Svc. Center; United
Planning Organization Shaw Community Svc. Center; University
Legal Services; University Legal Services; CCCS of Maryland
and Delaware; Delaware State Housing Authority; First State
Community Action Agency, Inc.; National Council on
Agricultural Life and Labor Research Fund, Inc. (NCALL
Research, Inc.); First State Community Action Agency, Inc;
National Council on Agricultural Life and Labor Research
Fund, Inc. (NCALL, Research, Inc.); Hockessin Community
Center; First State Community Action Agency, Inc.
National Council on Agricultural Life and Labor Research
Fund, Inc. (NCALL Research, Inc.); YWCA Delaware; Telamon
Corporation; CCCS of Delaware Valley, DBA Clarifi; CCCS of
Delaware Valley, Inc. DBA Clarifi; CCCS of Maryland and
Delaware; Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council;
Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware, Inc.; Interfaith
Community Housing of Delaware; Neighborhood House,
Incorporated; West End Neighborhood House; Homes in
Partnership, Inc.; We Help Community Development Corporation;
Florida Cooperative Extension--Holmes County Cooperative
Extension Service (Terminated); Boynton Beach Faith Based
CDC; Catholic Charities Diocese of Venice, Inc.; Manatee
Community Action Agency, Inc. F/K/A Manatee Opportunity
Council, Incorporated; Florida Cooperative Extension Levy
County Cooperative Extension Service; Florida Cooperative
Extension--Hernando County Cooperative Extension Service;
All-American Foreclosure Solutions, Inc.
Cape Coral Housing Development Corporation; Florida
Cooperative Extension--Washington County Cooperative
Extension Service (Terminated); Bright Community Trust, Inc.;
Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.; Consumer
Credit and Budget Counseling, DBA National Foundation for
Debt Management; Consumer Credit and Budget Counseling, DBA
National Foundation for Debt Management; Housing Services of
Central Florida; Tampa Bay Community Development Corporation;
Homes in Partnership, Incorporated; Credit Card Mgmt Svcs,
Inc. D/B/A Debthelper.Com; Florida Cooperative Extension--
Brevard County Cooperative Extension Service; Florida
Cooperative Extension--Brevard County Cooperative Extension
Service (Duplicate); CCCS of West FL; Florida Cooperative
Extension Dixie County Cooperative Extension Service; Florida
Cooperative Extension--Pasco County Cooperative Extension
Service (Terminated); Adopt A Hurricane Family, Inc. DBA
Crisis Housing Solutions; Apprisen--CCCS--Davie; Florida
[[Page H8093]]
Cooperative Extension--Broward County Cooperative Extension;
Central Florida Community Development Corporation; Community
Legal Services of Mid-Florida, Inc.
Mid-Florida Housing Partnership, Inc.; Florida Cooperative
Extension--Walton County Cooperative Extension Service;
Florida Cooperative Extension--Volusia County Cooperative
Extension Service; H.E.L.P. Community Development Corp.;
Affordable Housing by Lake, Inc; Centro Campesino,
Farmworkers Center, Inc.; New Visions Community Development
Corporation; Urban League of Broward County Main Office;
Urban League of Broward County (Branch Office); Affordable
Homeownership Foundation Inc; Home Ownership Resource Center
of Lee County; Housing Authority of the City of Ft.
Myers; Lee County Housing Development Corporation; CCCS of
West FL; City of Gainesville Housing Division; Florida
Cooperative Extension; Florida Cooperative Extension--
Alachua County Cooperative Extension Service; Florida
Cooperative Extension--Alachua County Cooperative
Extension Service (Duplicate); Neighborhood Housing &
Development Corporation; CCCS of the Midwest.
Community Housing Partners Corporation; Community Legal
Services of Mid-Florida, Inc.--Inverness Office; Black
Bottom/Springfield Human Development Corporation, DBA St.
Joseph Homeownership; Community Home Ownership Center, Inc.
F/K/A Jacksonville FL Chapter Assoc. of Housing Counselors &
Agencies CDC; Family Foundations of Northeast Florida, Inc.;
Florida Cooperative Extension--Duval County Cooperative
Extension Service; Greenpath, Inc.; Habitat for Humanity of
Jacksonville, Inc.; Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc.;
Jacksonville Urban League; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance
Corporation of America) Jacksonville, FL; Operation New Hope
CDC; Wealth Watcher, Inc; Community Legal Services of Mid-
Florida, Inc.--Kissimmee Office; Florida Cooperative
Extension--Osceola County Cooperative Extension Service; The
Agriculture and Labor Program, Inc.; Florida Cooperative
Extension--Columbia County Extension Service; Springboard--
Lake Mary; Catholic Charities of Central Florida; Keystone
Challenge Fund, Inc.
Florida Cooperative Extension--Pinellas County Cooperative
Extension Service; Broward County Housing Authority; Florida
Cooperative Extension--Citrus County Cooperative Extension
Service; Debt Management Credit Counseling Corp; Debt
Management Credit Counseling Corp; Debt Management Credit
Counseling Corp.; Florida Cooperative Extension--Suwannee
County Cooperative Extension Service; Greenpath Debt
Solutions; Florida Cooperative Extension--Baker County
Cooperative Extension Service (Duplicate); Florida
Cooperative Extension--Baker County Cooperative Extension
Service (Terminated); Florida Cooperative Extension--Madison
County Cooperative Extension Service (Terminated); Community
Housing Initiative, Inc; Cuban American National Council,
Inc.--Miami; Little Haiti Housing Association, Inc.;
Neighborhood Housing Services of South Florida; Real Estate,
Education and Community Housing, Inc.; SER Jobs for Progress;
Miami Beach Community Development Corp; NID-HCA Florida
Felton; Housing Development Corporation of SW Florida, Inc.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge that my friend
from Georgia does have a companion bill in the other body. I believe it
is S. 333. I would--like I will when the Georgia-Florida game comes
up--make a wager with my friend that that bill ain't going nowhere.
But, anyway, we are here talking about it, so my wager with the
gentleman will be under appropriate measures. I wish he and I could go
to Jacksonville together at what they say is the greatest cocktail
party in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned that at least one of the bills wrapped
up in today's, in my view, nonsense, ought to continue to be described
as a solution in search of a problem. I am not fully convinced that the
observation is not an apt one for the whole lot of bills before us
today. As I just mentioned, this is particularly disturbing as this
country has real problems which need real solutions.
The Children's Health Insurance Program has expired, and there seems
to be little to no will on the other side of the aisle to right this
wrong at this time. Sure, we hear possibilities of a solution. When I
came back this week, I thought that we would certainly address it.
September 30 was when it expired. Yet we and, more importantly,
millions of children and organizations wait for an answer.
We know that we are fast approaching a government shutdown, but
instead we come to the floor week after week forced to debate
ridiculous bills that, in substance, are well-thought-out by the
persons presenting them, but, in reality, are not going to become law
and are nothing more than talking points of the day, when these things
that we should be addressing are going unmet.
We need to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, yet the
answer to this issue evades my friends across the aisle. We need to
reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, yet we wait.
We need to address the crippling epidemic that is gun violence in
this country. We need to remember that not even a month ago, this man
out in Las Vegas took aim from the 32nd floor of a hotel and rained
terror down upon thousands of innocent people enjoying a music
festival. The weapons of war he used that night are just as readily
available today as the day he bought them.
Finally, I understand people may want to forget the following, but we
cannot, and I will not let you forget that there are millions of people
across the United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and there are
thousands in Florida and in Texas who are still awaiting visits from
FEMA.
On the plane up yesterday, I was reading a 3-page-long article
addressing, right in my community, the fact that people are sitting
waiting for FEMA's response. I continue to raise at the same time that
these hurricanes in Texas, southwest Louisiana, the Virgin Islands, and
Puerto Rico have occurred, forest fires in California and Montana and
Oregon have occurred, and we haven't addressed drought in other areas
that occurred. Just last week, tornadoes occurred in Oklahoma. We have
these disasters occurring.
I heard my colleague earlier today during morning hour make a
presentation regarding a main burst in Detroit, Michigan, and that they
don't have in her area sufficient drinking water. We know that the
Flint, Michigan, matter isn't resolved.
This past weekend, I busted a tire on a bumpy-hole road, and we need
to fix our roads in this country. This Capital ought to be called the
``Pothole of the World.''
Yet we stand here day after day discussing things that are going
nowhere when people in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are craving
electricity, opening schools with no electricity, moving people from
hospitals. We need safe drinking water all over this country. They need
for us to show compassion and at least some decency with reference to
humanity with those concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are many things that this body can do better. My
friend from Florida outlined his opinion of what those may be. He also
outlined his opinion of what will be a nice Georgia victory come
Saturday, this weekend, in Jacksonville. I do appreciate his
acknowledgement of what will be coming.
But I think there are also some other things that we need to discuss,
and we can talk about that. I will take, first off, the issue of the
Judiciary Committee on which I serve, which I believe, frankly, I have
the privilege of serving on what I believe are two of the hardest-
working and longest-hour committees on this Hill, and that is the Rules
Committee and the Judiciary Committee. Chairman Goodlatte is very
thoughtful.
We can disagree, Mr. Speaker, and I can understand my friend's
frustration on issues of closed bills which do come and have been under
both parties, but today's bills are not one of those. These two bills
both have amendments that are offered on the floor by both parties.
There are Republican amendments and there are Democrat amendments. This
is not one of those.
So I think, from the perspective of how process and regular order--
and we can go through those--I would stand with my chairman and
Chairman Goodlatte on that issue that we are working toward, and it is
something that really matters here.
I think also, as we look at this, it is talking about grasping of
straws. One of the things is we can get sidelined many times on looking
at what could be or want to be and what we want to focus on. But also,
it is a matter--as I come down here in this role many times, let's
focus on the line right now, let's focus on the minute ahead, let's
focus on the next vote, and that is
[[Page H8094]]
talking about these bills in this process.
I thought it was interesting to say that these are solutions in
search of a problem. It is really interesting to me that, undoubtedly,
these solutions in search of a problem--I think the problem is when
they have, especially under sue and settle, $9.6 billion annual cost,
$500 million in the first year cost; Oil and Gas Rule, $738 million
annually; $632 million annually for the Florida Nutrient Standards and
Estuary Flowing Waters Rule; Boiler MACT, $3 billion. I mean, I could
go on. And $90 billion for reconsideration of 2008 ozone.
Let's make it very clear what sue and settle does. Sue and settle
does not take the power for an agency to enter into a consent decree.
Consent decrees are used often. The problem with this one is that when
you have two parties on the same page suing, in essence, what amounts
to one so that they can get a desired result without talking to the
others who were affected, that is just wrong.
It is like me taking another congressman, or you, Mr. Speaker, and
saying: You know, let's work out a deal.
But the reality is it is going to affect my friend from across the
aisle, but we are not going to tell him. We are simply going to say: We
are going to work our deal out. We are going to go to the Court. We are
going to get the Court to sign off on it and we are going to implement
everything that we have without proper insight and oversight.
That is all that we are asking for. It is called fairness. I am not
sure how you could be against that, unless you like the idea of writing
regulatory law in cubicles down the street instead of here on the floor
of the House.
The other issue I see here is this issue of slush funds. We have
talked about this, and the gentleman put 10 pages into the Record. He
can put 49 into the Record; he can put 550 into the Record of eligible
agencies for this money.
The problem is not eligible agencies. Number one, they are not
victims. Number two, they are not part of the suit, yet we are giving
it at sometimes double the rate to the offenders. Those that the
Justice Department said were doing wrong--let's get this clear. Like in
the housing issue--said you are doing wrong in this mortgage issue.
But what we are going to do, instead of giving the money at 1:1 back
to victims, we are going to give it at 2:1 if you go to our preferred
charity in donation form. It sounds like to me the only people who are
getting problematic here are the victims of it; and the others of these
pages of people who may or may not have political leanings or religious
leanings or anything else, they are the recipient of the lottery.
They said, ``We will go help these people; give us money,'' instead
of saying this is an issue that needs to be dealt with in a settlement
to the victims.
It also has been said that this is just giving money to help those in
those areas so that they can get back on their feet. But it also went
further than that. There were two instances in particular that I can
come up with: the Housing Council, which this body said we are not
funding any longer, yet the administration used these donations to
circumvent the appropriations process and fund it. That is not the role
of the executive branch. That is an article I role.
The electric vehicle subsidy, $2 billion, again, this body said no.
They said: No worries. We will go get a settlement. We will just take
the donations and we will fund something that Congress has already said
no on.
So it is easy to paint with broad strokes and say this is not
important, this does not matter. But for some of us it does matter.
Those stories--why people are so upset when they look at this town is
they just remember what their old civic books told them: that there was
a Congress, there was an executive branch, and there was a judicial
branch; each required all to do their part.
If we decide that it is too far down the road, let's bind the hands
of the executive branch. We will do whatever. This is nothing except
Congress saying this is what we are going to do. It is saying, this is
what matters for us. And we may call it cheap; we may call it little;
we may call it solutions in search of a problem, but you talk about the
businessowners and the industries and the States who had to pay out on
these sue and settle agreements.
When you talk about the millions--the billions that were sent to
Iran, I think there will be a lot of people, when you look at both
sides of this case, who will say: Yes, Congress, I want you to stop
this because this is the way it should be set up.
That is why these bills are on the floor today. That is why we are
taking them up. That is the reason we are bringing them forward.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 577 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment
of status of certain individuals who are long-term United
States residents and who entered the United States as
children and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3440.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . . [and] has
no substantive legislative or policy implications
whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said.
Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative
Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th
edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the
previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is
generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority
Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule
[[Page H8095]]
[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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered; and
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2142.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 189, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 572]
YEAS--228
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
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
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
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
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
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Bridenstine
Buchanan
Burgess
Carson (IN)
Huizenga
Long
Lowenthal
Marchant
Reed
Roskam
Trott
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1337
Mmes. NAPOLITANO, MURPHY of Florida, Mses. SANCHEZ, SHEA-PORTER,
Messrs. GALLEGO, and AL GREEN of Texas changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 572.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227,
noes 190, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 573]
AYES--227
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
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)
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
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
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
[[Page H8096]]
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
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--190
Adams
Aguilar
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Burgess
Griffith
Huizenga
Long
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Rooney, Francis
Trott
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1344
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.
____________________