Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 200 (Thursday, December 7, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 200 (Thursday, December 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9722-H9730]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 477, SMALL BUSINESS MERGERS,
ACQUISITIONS, SALES, AND BROKERAGE SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 2017;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3971, COMMUNITY INSTITUTION
MORTGAGE RELIEF ACT OF 2017; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J.
RES. 123, FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 647 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 647

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 477) to
amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to exempt from
registration brokers performing services in connection with
the transfer of ownership of smaller privately held
companies. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-43 shall
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the
further amendment printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered
by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order, shall be
considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to
a demand for a division of the question; and (3) one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3971) to amend
the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act of 1974 to modify the requirements for
community financial institutions with respect to certain
rules relating to mortgage loans, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 115-44 shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the
further amendment printed in part B of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered
by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order, shall be
considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to
a demand for a division of the question; and (3) one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 123) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal
year 2018, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The
joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations;
and (2) one motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House
Resolution 647.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I hope you were listening as the Reading
Clerk was going through this rule, because there was a lot of meat in
this rule today.
Ordinarily, and, in fact, historically, we will do a bill and we will
do a rule; we will do a rule and we will do a bill. This rule today
makes three bills in order, three important bills in order.
I am proud to be able to carry this rule today. I hope my colleagues
will see the merits of it as I do.
The rule provides a structured rule for the debate of two bills out
of the Financial Services Committee. One is H.R. 477, Mr. Speaker, the
Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage
Simplification Act of 2017. The second is H.R. 3971, the Community
Institution Mortgage Relief Act. The rule also provides for
consideration of a continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 123, which provides
appropriations through December 22, as final year decisionmaking and
negotiating goes on. It also allows the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, CMS, to reallocate existing funds for the CHIP program
through December 31, 2017.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start off talking about the Financial Services
bills. We will have some members from the Financial Services Committee
come down. They can talk about it in details that I cannot.
It was a fascinating hearing that we had in the Rules Committee last
night, Mr. Speaker. We had the chairman, Mr.

[[Page H9723]]

Hensarling from Texas, and we had the ranking member, Ms. Waters. It
was a conversation about how we protect people, how do we serve people
better.
Now, the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act, Mr. Speaker, is
the result of small community banks and local credit unions saying: We
are having a tough time providing mortgages to our members because the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has created rules designed to
protect consumers that are protecting them right out of access to a
mortgage at all.
Mr. Speaker, it is a legitimate disagreement that we have here from
time to time about how to protect people best, about how to love people
best, but it is the right kind of conversation to be having. If we pass
this rule today, we will be able to get into debate on that underlying
bill.
The debate will not be about should we protect people, because we all
agree that we should.

{time} 1245

The debate will be about how should we protect those people, an issue
on which legitimate, well-intentioned, thoughtful men and women can
disagree. I look forward to this body working its will.
The second bill, Mr. Speaker, from the Financial Services Committee,
H.R. 477, was introduced by a classmate of mine in that big class of
2011, Mr. Huizenga from Michigan. He has worked this bill through the
process one step at a time, trying to build consensus so that, Mr.
Speaker, as we were in the Rules Committee last night, the conversation
between the chairman and the ranking member was: Hey, if we can make
one more amendment in order, one more amendment that Mr. Huizenga and
Mr. Sherman had worked out together, if we can make one more round of
changes, we believe we can get this through on a big bipartisan
majority coming out of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Speaker, we don't celebrate those things, we don't talk about
those things. The newspaper will be filled with discord coming out of
this city tomorrow morning, but I can tell you that it gives me great
pride to come on behalf of the Rules Committee today bringing forward
these bills, not that are going to change the world overnight, but are
going to make a big difference for real people facing real challenges
across this country.
It turns out, Mr. Speaker, my experience is if we do a little bit
together every day, a little bit today, a little bit tomorrow, a little
bit the next day, we wake up a year from now finding out we have done a
whole lot together on behalf of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, finally, the continuing resolution. I am not a fan of
continuing resolutions, I just want to tell you. I got to talk to you
about my enthusiastic, optimistic part of this rule earlier. I am going
to lay some tough love on you now, Mr. Speaker. We are not supposed to
be in the continuing resolution business. You know with your
leadership, the leadership of the gentlewoman from New York, the
leadership of the two gentlemen from Michigan here on the floor, this
House passed on time, ahead of schedule, the funding bills to fund the
priorities of the American people for fiscal year 2018.
Folks said we couldn't get it done, folks said we couldn't do it all.
We did, and we did. We sent that to the Senate, Mr. Speaker, before the
end of the fiscal year, which was back on September 30. The Senate
hasn't been able to take it up yet, Mr. Speaker. The Senate hasn't been
able to debate it yet, Mr. Speaker.
I don't know if the Senate is going to get it done in the next 2
weeks, but there are folks in this institution, Mr. Speaker, who say:
You know what? We couldn't get it done in the Senate over these last 2
months, so let's just go ahead and pass a continuing resolution for all
of fiscal year 2018.
A continuing resolution, for folks who don't follow the
appropriations process, means, hey, if it worked well last year, let's
just do the same thing next year. Mr. Speaker, that is awful public
policy.
We came together debating almost 500 amendments. Having moved every
single appropriations bill through the Appropriations Committee, we
came together not just in a bipartisan way in the committee, we came
together here on the House floor, debated these issues, grappled with
these issues, and produced a work product with which the American
people can take great pride.
I don't want to give up on that work product, Mr. Speaker. I don't
want to settle for the way things have been. I believe that we can do
better.
By passing a 2-week continuing resolution today, we ensure that all
the features of government continue to operate as the American people
expect them to, and we provide another window for the Senate to come
together and pass those appropriations bills as we have done here in
the House.
I am optimistic about that coming to fruition, Mr. Speaker. I believe
that we can get that done together.
Mr. Speaker, we can take up these bipartisan efforts from the
Financial Services Committee, we can take up this important effort to
continue the funding of the government if we pass this rule today.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have great fondness for Mr. Woodall. I think he is one
of the best, most pleasant persons on the Rules Committee, and it
grieves me that I have to, right off the bat here, take issue with him,
but I have to take issue with the claim that Republicans completed
their appropriation work on time.
I have got a timetable of the budget process that came from the
website of the Budget Committee majority, on which my colleague, Mr.
Woodall, serves. Let's review the most important deadlines.
First, the President must submit his budget to Congress by the first
Monday in February. The truth: this year, the administration released
what they called a skinny budget on March 16 and didn't release the
full budget until May 23. From our reckoning, that is 4 months late.
Second, the Congress must complete action on the budget by April 15.
The truth: this year, Republicans weren't able to get the fiscal year
2018 budget through Congress until October 26, over 6 months late and
nearly a month into the new fiscal year.
Now, here is another deadline, again available on the Republican
Budget Committee's website. The Appropriations Committee is supposed to
complete their work by June 10. The truth: this year, they didn't
report out any appropriations bills until after that deadline had
passed.
Another deadline: the House is supposed to complete action on annual
appropriations bills by June 30. The truth: not only did the Republican
majority fail to meet that deadline, they weren't able to pass any of
them separately at all. Instead, they lumped four bills together and
passed them on July 27 and then passed an Omnibus with all 12 bills
together on September 14, leaving 2 weeks only for the House and Senate
to work out their differences, but the law said that they should have 3
months to do it.

I wouldn't bring this up except I know Mr. Woodall believes, with all
his heart, that what he is saying is right, because we have heard it
before.
That leads me to the final deadline that they missed. Fiscal year
2018 began October 1, but here we are more than two months later on
December 7. The Republican majority has still failed to fund the
government, because they have been too busy working to kill the
Affordable Care Act and to give big tax breaks to corporations and
billionaires.
On time, Mr. Speaker? Any school child could tell you that you don't
get credit for an assignment that is 2 months late.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the timetable of the budget
process from the website of the House Budget Committee majority.

Time Table of the Budget Process

Title III of the Congressional Budget Act establishes a
specific timetable for the congressional budget process.
On or Before, Action to be completed:
First Monday in February, President submits his budget;
February 15, Congressional Budget Office submits report to
Budget Committees; Not later than 6 weeks after the President
submits the budget, Committees

[[Page H9724]]

submit views and estimates to Budget Committees. (Frequently,
the House Budget Committee sets own date based on Legislative
Calendar); April 1, Senate Budget Committee reports
concurrent resolution on the budget; April 15, Congress
completes action on the concurrent resolution on the budget.
(This is not signed by the President)*; May 15, Annual
appropriation bills may be considered in House; June 10,
House Appropriations Committee reports last annual
appropriation bill; June 15, Congress completes action on
reconciliation legislation. (If required by the budget
resolution); June 30, House completes action on annual
appropriation bills; October 1, Fiscal year begins.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the majority has put before us today a 2-
week continuing resolution to fund the government through December 22.
I have heard some in the majority question why anyone would take
issue with this approach, but, Mr. Speaker, the question that should be
asked is this one: What is the majority actually willing to get done
over the next 2 weeks? Because it has now been more than 2 months since
some vital national priorities have lapsed under their leadership.
The Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides healthcare to
more than 9 million children across this Nation, expired on September
30. So did the community health centers, which serve more than 25
million people. Now, this expiration has put 2,800 centers in danger of
closure and 9 million people at risk for losing their access to their
healthcare.
The Perkins Loan Program, which many low-income students rely on for
their education, was allowed to expire by the majority with no
reauthorization in sight, despite broad bipartisan support for a bill
to do just that. Unfortunately, the majority has been unwilling even to
bring it up for a vote.
Are they now ready to take meaningful action to protect our children,
our students, our public health, and our Nation?
Democrats haven't just been fighting to reauthorize programs that
expired 2 months ago, we are also trying to address the priorities that
we know our Nation will face in the weeks ahead. That includes passing
hurricane relief funding to help the families that are still recovering
from this horrendous hurricane season; and as all of us are fearful of
and sad about, California is burning once again; reauthorizing section
702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which we depend on,
which is due to expire at the end of this month. The FISA court helps
to keep our country safe.
Mr. Speaker, if past is prologue, this majority will be missing in
action 2 weeks from now, just as they have been for months.
Just consider, for a moment, how they have squandered this year,
wasting months on fruitless attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act
until persuaded by their constituents that they did not want that done.
It remains the law of the land today after the public overwhelmingly
demanded the majority stop that crusade.
Now they are trying to pass a tax cut for the wealthy that, if
enacted, would represent one of the largest transfers of wealth from
working families to the wealthy that our Nation has ever seen.
I want everybody to please pay attention to this, because it is proof
positive of what is happening with this majority. According to the
Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office, under
the majority's plan, those making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay an
additional $5.3 billion in taxes combined over the next decade. Now,
remember, they are going to pay more into the number of $5.3 billion.
At the same time--attention, America--those earning $1 million or
more would see a $5.8 billion cut. Have you ever seen anything as cut
and dry? They absolutely want to take from the poor to give to the
rich--Robin Hood in reverse.
So we are 2 months into the fiscal year, and the majority has been so
preoccupied with the special interest agenda, that we haven't passed
full year appropriations. This has robbed the Federal agencies and our
economy of the certainty that they need.
The majority holds the House, the Senate, and the White House and
still can't get anything done. So when Democrats see a continuing
resolution for 2 weeks, we don't see a simple extension of the status
quo; we see it for what it really is: kicking the can down the road in
order to pursue reckless partisan politics, and it comes without any
plan to tackle the major issues that face our Nation today.
Let me remind my colleagues how important it has been for both
parties to work together, because in this process, both the CR and the
tax bill, there are no Democrat fingerprints on any of it. For a lot of
this stuff, there has even been no committee action.
Democrats have helped the majority pass every major funding bill
since they assumed control in 2011. That is the result of
bipartisanship.
This time, the majority decided not to compromise with us to reach a
deal. Let's see if they can cobble together the votes to get this
proposal over the finish line.
Even if it passes, we will be back here later this month to consider
another short-term continuing resolution, and we still have no idea
whether this bill, the one we are working on today, could even pass the
Senate.
This is no way to run the United States of America. The lives of our
countrymen are hanging in the balance.
All we do under this majority is to lurch from one self-inflicted
crisis to the next. Our constituents deserve much better than this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with a lot of what my friend from New
York had to say when it comes to the facts. I do disagree with the
conclusions that are reached there, Mr. Speaker.
We do need to do a better job of working together. Now, sometimes
that means Republicans and Democrats, sometimes that means the House
and the Senate, sometimes that means the White House and the Congress.
We need to hold each other accountable, but we also need to give each
other credit for our successes.
The gentlewoman talked about important issues relating to education
and improving workforce. We passed together in this institution a
continuation of career and technical education funding. We reauthorized
that program together, led by G.T. Thompson on my side of the aisle, by
Mr. Krishnamoorthi on your side of the aisle, by Chairwoman Foxx on our
side of the aisle, by Ranking Member Scott on your side of the aisle.
We grappled with that issue together. We did it together, because it
was the right thing for the American people, and now it sits in the
United States Senate without action.

{time} 1300

We came together, and we funded the government. We grappled, line by
line, section by section, we did it together, and now it sits in the
United States Senate.
Mr. Speaker, what needs to be said, one can describe it as Republican
incompetence. One can describe it as Democrat intransigence. But we, as
a House, have come together and gotten our work done. The Senate
cannot, and why the Senate cannot is because it requires 60 votes to
get something done over there under Senate rules. In order to have 60
votes, you have to have Democrat votes.
If the Senate changed its rules tomorrow and made it just a
Republican majority institution, they could move all of these bills
without delay. Far from being a reflection of incompetence, it is a
reflection of a commitment to a bipartisan effort on the Senate side.
We can poke them and poke them and poke them and, just one day, folks
might get their wish, and we may make that a completely Republican
streamlined process over there. But be careful what you wish for.
We don't have to kick each other in the shins all day long, every
day, over here. We have success after success that we have earned
together. We should spend more time celebrating those successes, Mr.
Speaker. Among those successes is the bill I mentioned earlier, offered
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Huizenga) to talk about the hard work, the effort, and the success that
he has been able to accomplish in a bipartisan way.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and classmate from
Georgia, Mr. Woodall, for the opportunity to be here.

[[Page H9725]]

Mr. Speaker, more and more baby boomers retire every day, and it has
been estimated that approximately $10 trillion of privately owned,
small, and family-run businesses will either be closed or, if possible,
sold to a new generation of entrepreneurs in the coming years.
Mergers and acquisitions--or M&A as it is oftentimes referred to--
brokers play a critical role in facilitating the transfer of ownership
of these smaller, privately held companies. However, today's one-size-
fits-all system of broker-dealer regulation unnecessarily burdens
business sellers and buyers with the pass-through of heavy regulatory
compliance costs that do not provide significant incremental benefits
in privately negotiated M&A transactions.
Today, Federal securities regulations technically require local
mergers and acquisitions brokers to be registered and regulated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission and FINRA, just like Wall Street
investment bankers. Those bankers are trying to sell or buy publicly
traded companies. That is right; anyone brokering the sale of a
hometown small business in your district or in mine, like in Holland,
Michigan, must be federally registered and regulated as a securities
broker-dealer, in addition to State law requirements, regardless of the
size of the business or the sale transaction.
Federal securities regulation was primarily designed to protect
passive investors and public securities markets. Privately negotiated
mergers and acquisitions transactions facilitated by these small
business brokers are vastly different and do not typically relate to
the transactions meant to be protected by the SEC and FINRA regulation
and registration.
That is why I have continued to introduce bipartisan legislation
known as the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage
Simplification Act. This bipartisan bill would create a simplified
system for brokers performing services in connection with the transfer
of ownership of smaller, privately held companies.
I would like to thank Representatives Sherman and Maloney, along with
the work of Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters for what they
have done. And as my friend from Georgia had pointed out, not every day
do we have to just keep kicking each other in the shins. We actually
can work together, and this is an example of doing that.
So the impact of this legislation would significantly reduce
transaction costs, promote competition among these small business
brokers, and facilitate private businesses and acquisitions of these
small businesses.
This initiative promotes economic growth and development through
these sales, and there is really substantial relief of regulatory
burdens on small business professionals who serve these smaller
business owners.
Business brokerage services are critically important to entrepreneurs
who start, build, and eventually want to sell their private companies.
Similarly, these services help new entrepreneurs acquire these
businesses, while helping existing companies grow, thus preserving and
creating jobs in the communities that we all serve.
We have worked very closely with our colleagues across the aisle, and
this has been a multi--not just multiyear--a multi-Congress effort over
the last few different Congresses, and I am just pleased today that we
can show the American people positive, effective, bipartisan work that
is coming together.
It is legislation like H.R. 477 that demonstrates, frankly, that
Congress can act in a bipartisan manner to positively impact the lives
of Americans, and I urge swift consideration and passage of this
important bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman, the
ranking member, for yielding, and I thank Mr. Woodall for his comments.
He and I have worked together on issues in the past. We worked together
to try to protect our solar manufacturers in this country, so there are
areas of agreement that we come to.
I think we also agree, I now hear, on this question of continuing
resolutions. We both don't like them. And I think we do have to keep in
mind that, today, we are 48 hours from the government closing, so I
won't address any other subject than that question and the process that
has led us to this moment where we are looking at another continuing
resolution for 2 weeks.

I won't address the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and
Brokerage Simplification Act. While it may be an important piece of
legislation, it is difficult to forget what has brought us to this
moment where we are 48 hours from the government shutting down.
What is interesting to me about it is, it is true that the
Republicans hold the majority in this House and set the agenda here;
hold the majority in the Senate, set the agenda there. You have your
Republican President, the leader of your party, your leader, who sets
the agenda from the White House.
You have had the entire year to get a package of spending bills to
the floor and through to the President. And here we are, 2 days away
from a shutdown, because 2\1/2\ months ago, after nearly a year, the
process came to a halt, and this body had to approve a 2\1/2\ month
extension because we couldn't get the work done.
Now, instead of, over the last 2\1/2\ months, coming up with a full
plan to fund the government and provide the certainty and security that
the American people and our economy depend upon, after 2\1/2\ months,
the best we can do is promise the people of the country and our economy
14 more days.
I mean, why are we here?
In the last 2\1/2\ months, have we seen any action? No, not on
disaster relief for those places that are struggling through the worst
moments that they have experienced; not to make sure that we have
healthcare, health insurance, which was a bipartisan program, the
Children's Health Insurance Program. Anything? No.
So that DREAMers aren't deported? People who only know this country?
And think about this: since the President, himself--and this is an
area where we have some agreement--declared that we have a national
emergency, our people, our children, are dying due to this opioid
crisis, and where is the solution there?
Where is the debate there?
Where is the effort on the floor of this House to deal with these
big, pressing problems that our country faces?
We have had the last 2\1/2\ months; we could have done it during that
period.
But what has been the focus? A singular obsession around a piece of
legislation that is purported to be tax reform, but at close
examination by just about any significant economist, Democrats,
Republicans, and Independents is the greatest, most significant,
massive shift of hard-earned wealth from working Americans to people
who make more than $900,000 a year.
The notion that, with all the difficulty we are facing in this
country, with all the struggles we are having, with disasters that are
yet to be corrected, with an opioid crisis that is yet to be attacked,
with DREAMers who have uncertainty, with children with no certainty of
healthcare, the most significant priority is not funding the
government, but ensuring that people who make more than those suffering
people, who make more than $900,000 a year, get more?
That is not a reflection of the priorities of the American people;
and that is why it is so difficult for us, who are ready, honestly--
honestly ready to work hand in glove, knowing we are not going to win
every fight, but give us a chance to sit at the table and have a
conversation about where we might find some common ground.
And we do from time to time. It is not impossible. Even with my
friends in this Chamber right now, we have found ways to work together.
But we cannot do it, we cannot do it unless there is a commitment to do
the work of the American people, and we have not seen that.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would be interested sometime, Mr. Speaker, having a team building
expert take a look at some of our proceedings here on the House floor
and see if they think that the conversations that happen here bring us
closer to working together on serious solutions, or push us further
away.
I agree with my friend from Michigan; we need to get about the
business of the American people. The business of

[[Page H9726]]

the American people is not figuring out who to blame, it is figuring
out how to fix things. And to continue to perpetuate the inaccurate
message that we don't collaborate on those issues is to do our bosses,
the American people, a terrible disservice.
On bill after bill to combat the opioid epidemic, we have come
together in this institution. We have passed these bills in a
collaborative way and sent them to the United States Senate. Bill after
bill on human trafficking, we have come together in this institution.
We have passed these bills. We have sent those bills to the United
States Senate.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about funding the American Government. I
have been in this Congress since 2011. I got to vote, for the very
first time, on funding the Centers for Disease Control, which sits
right in my back yard in the great State of Georgia.
I got to vote, for the very first time, on funding the National
Institutes of Health, which do such amazing research, both for our
seniors and for our children. The kind of talent that we have there,
Mr. Speaker, boggles the mind. We came together, and we funded those
institutions in the annual appropriations bill for the first time ever.
Now, we can spend our time together talking about who hates children
and who hates old people, and why it is everybody is an untalented
buffoon; or we can recognize that, on issue after issue, we come
together and get about the business that our bosses sent us to get
about.
I don't think any of us are going to be rewarded by figuring out who
to blame. I think we are going to be rewarded by getting it fixed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Tenney), who has worked, through the Financial Services Committee,
again, in a bipartisan way, to deal with local community financial
institutions and local home buyers who are getting shut out of the
process by an overly burdensome Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia, Mr. Woodall,
for yielding and for his great comments about bipartisanship.
Mr. Speaker, over the last 10 years, the community financial
institution industry has undergone a dramatic transformation. Since
2006, more than 1,500 banks have failed, have been acquired, or have
merged due to economic factors and the overwhelmingly expensive
regulation brought forth by the passage of Dodd-Frank.
During that same period, there has been a drought in de novo banks.
In fact, only five new bank charters and 16 new credit unions have
chartered since that time.
Today, for the first time in 125 years, there are fewer than 6,000
banks and roughly 6,000 credit unions serving all consumers in the
United States. This is proof that community financial institutions need
smart, commonsense, regulatory relief so they can properly serve local
communities by assisting them with small business startups and consumer
credit, particularly in a region like mine in upstate New York.
It is important that we pass this rule today to consider my bill,
H.R. 3971, the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act.

{time} 1315

This bipartisan measure would offer real relief for institutions that
are barely surviving in an excessive regulatory environment.
I thank my colleague, Mr. Sherman, for assisting us in a bipartisan
way to bring this bill forward and to make it even better than we
originally conceived it.
H.R. 3971 would exempt small community institutions from mandatory
escrow requirements and would provide relief from new regulations that
have nearly doubled the cost of servicing, with direct impact on the
consumer for the cost of mortgage credit.
I know that certain institutions wish to continue to provide escrow
services to their consumers, and under current law and under this
provision, they are welcome to do that. However, for the smaller
institutions, like the ones in my district, like GPO Federal Credit
Union, for example, that rely on relationship banking, customers that
walk in the door and know who your neighbors are and know who your
friends are and whose children serve on the same sports teams and go to
the same schools, this bill will greatly help them and help our
consumers continue with that relationship.
By mandating that all institutions follow escrow requirements, it
raises the cost of credit for those borrowers who can least afford it,
and harms our small local institutions who can barely afford to stay
alive.
This is a great commonsense bill. It is bipartisan, as every bill I
have ever proposed in this Chamber has been since my first year as a
freshman, and I will continue to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this bill. I again thank my colleague from Georgia for his
work. I urge everyone to support this commonsense bill that will help
our small community banks and our credit unions.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time to me and also for her tremendous leadership on so many
issues, especially on the Rules Committee.
As a members of the Appropriations and Budget Committees, I rise in
strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill, H.J. Res. 123,
the fiscal year 2017 continuing resolution.
This bill kicks the can down the road for 2 weeks just so Republicans
can continue focusing on the greatest tax scam in history.
As Ranking Member Lowey has said: What do Republicans think that they
can accomplish in the next 2 weeks that they haven't accomplished in
the last 2 months?
Well, I say: Except, of course, trying to give tax breaks to their
wealthy donors, millionaires, billionaires, and corporations, and
raising taxes on middle-income and low-income families. That is what
this is about.
This reckless, short-term resolution ignores many of our critical
year-end priorities, like passing a clean Dream Act, a temporary
protective status provision we need in the CR; raising budgetary caps;
and emergency disaster funding for hurricanes and wildfires, children's
health insurance programs, and community health centers. I could go on
and on. That is what we should be debating and what should be in this
resolution. Now is not the time for Congress to be asleep at the wheel.
We need action, Mr. Speaker, and we need it now.
Despite the fact that Republicans control the House, the Senate, and
the White House, once again, they refuse to do their job. It is so
wrong to string people and communities out not knowing whether their
government will function or stay open.
How irresponsible can you get?
We need to fully fund the government. Across the country, millions of
people are living on the edge. Forty million Americans are living in
poverty. Millions more are struggling to put food on the table and keep
a roof over their head.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Russell). The time of the gentlewoman
has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. We are passing a short-
term funding bill that underfunds education and workforce training at a
time that Americans need it the most.
Instead, once again, what are they doing?
They are taking time to give tax cuts to corporations to send jobs
overseas.
The American people expect us to create jobs, to strengthen our
economy, to provide a basic standard of living for all. With sequester
cuts looming, it is past time that we focus on our spending here at
home and stop these increases to a bloated military budget, which
really does nothing for our national security.
Instead of bringing our Nation to the brink of self-inflicted crisis,
Republicans should work with us to meet the needs of our Nation and a
strong national security, which requires resisting these cuts to our
State Department and to our foreign assistance. Unfortunately, this 2-
week continuing resolution does just the opposite.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and
``no'' on the underlying bill, and let's do our job. Let's do what the
American people expect us to do, and that is to fully fund

[[Page H9727]]

the government and look out for them in terms of not giving tax cuts to
millionaires and billionaires and raising their taxes, because they
deserve better from us.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I opened with a discussion about how we all care about
these American homeowners who are trying to get, oftentimes, into their
first home, and how it is that we protect them better.
We disagreed about how to protect them.
Do you do it through the CFPB and Federal regulation? Or do you do it
through more local hometown institutions being governed by their
neighbors?
We agreed on what the need was, but we disagreed on how to get there.
What is so frustrating to me--I still feel like a relatively new
Member of this institution, Mr. Speaker. I guess I am not any longer--
is that we seem to have one standard when we are in the majority and a
completely different standard when the other guy takes over the
institution. It seems to me that principles should be principles
irrespective of who sits in your chair.
The very first big vote I took when I got here in 2011, Mr. Speaker,
was to fund the United States Government in February.
Why?
Because when Democrats ran every single facet of government--they
controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, and they controlled
the White House--they didn't get it done. They couldn't get it done. It
is hard to do sometimes, Mr. Speaker.
I will take you back. You weren't in this institution at that time.
The year is 2010. The first CR that they passed went from October 1 to
December 3, about the same length of time as the one that we passed.
They weren't up to anything nefarious when that happened, Mr.
Speaker, and I resent the implication that we have been during that
same path. They needed a little extra time and they took it.
When that CR expired, Mr. Speaker, they then went and passed, lo and
behold, a 2-week CR--a 2-week CR from December 4 to December 18. They
needed a little more time. They passed one for 2 more weeks to get
themselves a little more time.
That didn't work out, Mr. Speaker. They still weren't able to get it
done in those 2 weeks, so their next CR, Mr. Speaker, went from
December 19 to December 21. Three days is what they found to be the
right number to extend funding of the Federal Government so they could
continue to get their work done, Mr. Speaker.
When that 3-day CR didn't work, they then punted altogether; and when
my freshman class came in in 2011, we took over and we funded the
government instead.
Mr. Speaker, we can describe what happened when my friends last
controlled this institution as an abominable failure, or we can
describe it as a frustrating failure but something that happens in this
institution. It happened when my friends ran it. It happens when we run
it. We need, on behalf of the American people, to get on a better
track. Let me stipulate that is true.
But let me ask my friends to stipulate, Mr. Speaker, that for the
first time in a long time we are on a better track because we came
together in this institution and we got our work done. The Senate
hasn't, and I am frustrated by that, but I want to give them a little
more time.
For my friend from Michigan who asked the question, ``What difference
does 2 weeks make,'' I would ask anyone who has that question to Google
``continuing resolution'' and ``Department of Defense.''
If you think that continuing to fund the government one day at a time
with a continuing resolution, or even 12 months of the time during a
continuing resolution, if you think that is the definition of success,
Google ``continuing resolution'' and ``Department of Defense.''
Every single day that we fail to take up in the United States Senate
the large full-year funding appropriations bill, we do a disservice to
every single man and woman in uniform.
If we have a choice here today, Mr. Speaker, between doing that
disservice to those men and women for 2 weeks or 6 weeks or 8 weeks or
12 months, I choose to.
If you wonder what difference it makes, ask any man or woman in
uniform. There is a reason, Mr. Speaker, as hard as the appropriations
process is, that you and I took up the defense portion, the Homeland
Security portion, the national security portion all the way back in the
summer and passed it out of this House before the end of July, because
we knew how important it was. We knew how mission critical it was, and
we wanted to give the Senate the most time we possibly could.
I am frustrated, too, but let us not describe these failures as
partisan failures, as an effort by one side or the other to subvert the
process. These are failures. But 2 weeks, Mr. Speaker, is going to be
less of a failure for our men and women in uniform than would be 3
weeks, 4 weeks, or 12 months.
I am sorry that we are here, but this is the best circumstance that
we can create to allow our Senate time to succeed.
They cannot succeed alone. Republicans cannot succeed there alone. It
requires a bipartisan majority to succeed. Let us not pretend this is a
partisan problem. This is an American challenge, and I believe we are
up for it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said they need the Democrats.
He must be aware that they only need us when the votes come.
There is not a Democrat fingerprint on that tax bill. We had nothing
to say about any of it. And while we begged almost on our hands and
knees to be a part of what they are doing, we are not. It always sounds
good when we hear it on the floor: Bipartisan. Oh, look, we want to
work together.
But then, oftentimes, as you know, Mr. Speaker, bills come to the
Rules Committee with no committee action whatsoever and no possible
description to be bipartisan.
Mr. Speaker, for years we have endured relentless Republican attacks
on the Affordable Care Act, including just last week in the Senate's
disastrous tax bill. By repealing the individual mandate, the Senate
bill has knocked 13 million people from their health insurance.
I must have asked 20 times when they were doing those 60 times to try
to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act: Why do you want to take
healthcare away from people?
I have never, to this day, gotten an answer as to why it is they so
despise a healthcare bill that is working and has literally insured
more Americans than have ever been insured before.

Then suddenly, just on a whim, one party decides--the one that has
been fighting to kill it over and over again--that they will come at it
piecemeal and just try to render it helpless by taking away the ability
to even say it is time to go sign up again.
I am sure they thought they would do grievous harm, but it didn't
work that way, and millions of people came out to sign up again because
healthcare is one of the most critical needs for any American family.
To make matters worse, the bill also repeals most of the State and
local tax deductions, and that is a deduction that helps middle class
families in my State of New York.
New York, on average, gives back to the Federal Government of the
United States $40 billion; money that we send to Washington and get
nothing back for it, the way we are rewarded for that. I think that
probably will not be happening anymore since the taxes are going to go
up so much higher on the people of my State, unless they do away with
what is absolutely one of the most atrocious things I have ever seen
them do.
Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the tax bill was not designed to help
middle class families put food on their table, but, instead, it gives
corporation tax cuts to line the pockets of their shareholders.
I have yet to read or see the Senate tax bill, but I understand there
are gifts in there for people who own jet planes. I don't represent any
of those.

{time} 1330

But taking care, again, of the rich, as demonstrated in the figures
that supported my speech a while ago, that just

[[Page H9728]]

short of $6 billion, that goes from the poor people who make under
$40,000 to the rich people, the same office, the same amount of money,
dollar for dollar, and absolutely proves what we are saying.
But you don't need to hear from it me. Don't take my word for it.
Republican Congressman Mark Sanford recently said in a moment of great
candor: ``From a truth-in-advertising standpoint, it would have been a
lot simpler if we just acknowledged reality on this bill, which is it's
fundamentally a corporate tax reduction and restructuring bill,
period.''
There is no tiny scintilla of reform in this bill. It is simply, as
he points out, a way to lower the corporate tax and take care of the
extraordinarily wealthy in this country who don't need it.
Mr. Speaker, I wish we could provide health for middle class
families, which is what I believe the President of the United States
thinks he did. I hear him say all the time that there is nothing in
there to benefit him--except, probably, the estate tax, which we
understand would save him about $1 billion.
So, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment
that will prohibit any legislation being considered on the floor that
limits or repeals the State and local tax deduction or repeals the ACA
individual mandate.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment and remind everyone
watching of the impacts of the majority's last shutdown in 2013. The
impacts on our economy were significant. We lost $24 billion in just
those 2 weeks. The impacts on our economy, as I said, were very
significant:
Federal loans to small businesses, homeowners, and families were
brought to a halt.
Banks and other lenders were unable to access government verification
services, which delayed private sector lending to small businesses and
individuals alike.
Federal permitting was brought to a standstill, which delayed job-
creating projects in the transportation and energy sectors.
Experts have estimated that all told, this 16-day shutdown cost our
economy an estimated $24 billion.
So, during this shutdown, again, vital services were put on hold.
At the National Institutes of Health, hundreds of patients were
unable to enroll in possibly lifesaving clinical trials.
Federal agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency were unable to conduct health and
safety inspections.
Federal scientific research was also halted, and we lost a lot of
scientists in this country because of all that. Five Nobel Prize
winning scientists who worked for the Federal Government at the time of
the shutdown, four of the five of them were laid off.
This is all according to a report issued by the Office of Management
and Budget.
The public knows how devastating another shutdown could be. According
to a poll conducted by Morning Consult and Politico released this week,
there is bipartisan opposition, with 68 percent of Democrats, 62
percent of Republicans, and 61 percent of Independents all opposing a
government shutdown.
I forgot to mention up there about Social Security checks and things
for the Veterans Administration. They came to a halt.
So that is what makes this so frustrating. I agree with Mr. Woodall.
This is a frustrating part of what we are trying to do here. Every day
it seems we get up and we face some kind of new disaster.
We could have crafted a bipartisan bill--we sure could have--that
would have removed any question of whether a continuing resolution
would pass the House and Senate.
We could have reauthorized the Children's Health Insurance Program,
community health centers, Perkins loans, and more months ago, if only
the majority were willing to work with Democrats. Instead,
bipartisanship is all too often becoming a dirty word under the
majority. I sadly say: It is the American people left to pay the price.
So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, and the
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank my friend from New York for helping me to bring the rule
today.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in truth in advertising, and of all the things
that you heard the Reading Clerk read, when he went through word for
word for word from this rule, you heard not one word about taxes today.
Why? Because we are not talking about taxes today at all. Because
nothing that we are doing today has anything to do with taxes at all.
Because of all the successes that we are down here to partner on today,
tax is not one of them.
What is on the list today?
Well, in the spirit of truth in advertising, Mr. Speaker, shutdowns
aren't on the list either. In fact, the opposite is true. If we pass
this rule today, we will fund the government. We will prioritize
keeping the doors open.
Mr. Speaker, habits are hard things to break, and we are in two very
bad habits in this institution. One is failing to see the merit in what
the other side is offering. We have two Financial Services bills today
that break that pattern, that see the merit in working together and
collaborating together, and we bring two bills to the floor that this
entire institution can be proud of.

We have another bad habit of ascribing to the other side's motives
that I believe are not worthy of this institution at all. A government
shutdown would be one of those things. We are, in good faith, working
together--Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, Congress and
White House--to get about the business of the American people, and it
is hard. But it is worth doing, and it is worth doing right.
If I have to choose between fast and right, I choose right. We have
got a chance today, with the passage of this rule, to bring up two
bills that our colleagues, in bipartisan ways, have worked through on
the Financial Services Committee that will make a big difference to
families and businesses across this Nation.
We have an opportunity today, if we pass this rule, to bring up a
continuing resolution that guarantees to every single American that the
doors are open, the lights are on, and we continue and have an
opportunity for the Senate to move final legislation.
I want my colleagues to support this rule. I want my colleagues to
support the underlying bills. But, Mr. Speaker, more than anything, I
want my colleagues to take pride in the successes that we have achieved
here today.
CHIP funding, Children's Health Insurance funding, is at risk, but
not because we haven't succeeded. We have. All we need is one more
signature from the Senate.
CDC funding may be at risk, but not because we haven't succeeded. We
have. We just need that bill to get across the floor in the Senate.
Our troops are on the cusp of receiving a well-deserved pay raise.
Why? Because we came together and we passed it here. We just need it to
get across the floor of the Senate.
And there is not one of those items or a dozen more that I could
list, Mr. Speaker, that will move across the floor of the Senate in
anything but a bipartisan way.
Do you want bipartisanship? If you want cooperation, if you want
success, we have our chance today. Vote ``yes'' on this rule, Mr.
Speaker. Vote ``yes'' on these underlying bills, and let's get together
and get the Senate across the finish line as well.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 647 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:

``SEC. 4. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ANY TAX BILL THAT RAISES
TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES BY ELIMINATING
OR LIMITING THE STATE AND LOCAL TAX DEDUCTION.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House
of Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution,
motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or
conference report that repeals or limits the State and Local
Tax Deduction (26 U.S.C. Sec. 164).
(b) Waiver in the House.--It shall not be in order in the
House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that
waives the application of subsection (a). As disposition of

[[Page H9729]]

a point of order under this subsection, the Chair shall put
the question of consideration with respect to the rule or
order, as applicable. The question of consideration shall be
debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point
of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall
otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one
that the House adjourn.''

``SEC. 5. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ANY TAX BILL THAT REPEALS
THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE UNDER THE PATIENT
PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House
of Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution,
motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or
conference report that repeals or limits the individual
mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(26 U.S.C. Sec. 5000A).
(b) Waiver in the House.--It shall not be in order in the
House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that
waives the application of subsection (a). As disposition of a
point of order under this subsection, the Chair shall put the
question of consideration with respect to the rule or order,
as applicable. The question of consideration shall be
debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating the point
of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall
otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one
that the House adjourn.''
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . . When
the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of
the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to
ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then
controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or
yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 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 House Resolution 647, if ordered;
Suspending the rules and adopting H. Res. 259; and
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236,
nays 190, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 665]

YEAS--236

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
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
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
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
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
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NAYS--190

[[Page H9730]]

Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--6

Bridenstine
Brownley (CA)
Franks (AZ)
Kennedy
Pocan
Ryan (OH)

{time} 1404

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238,
nays 188, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 666]

YEAS--238

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
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
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
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
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NAYS--188

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--6

Bridenstine
Brownley (CA)
Doggett
Kennedy
Pocan
Scott, David

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1411

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.

____________________