[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 209 (Thursday, December 21, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H10349-H10360]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1370,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BLUE CAMPAIGN AUTHORIZATION ACT OF
2017; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4667, FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE
PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 22, 2017, THROUGH JANUARY 7, 2018
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 670 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 670
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
1370) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require
the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue Department of
Homeland Security-wide guidance and develop training programs
as part of the Department of Homeland Security Blue Campaign,
and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto,
and to consider in the House, without intervention of any
point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the
Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House
concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting
of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-52. The Senate
amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The
motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without
intervening motion.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4667) making
further supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2018, for disaster assistance for
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and calendar year 2017
wildfires, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendments
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply during consideration
of the bill. 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
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 3. On any legislative day of the first session of the
One Hundred Fifteenth Congress after December 21, 2017--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 4. On any legislative day of the second session of
the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress before January 8, 2018--
(a) the Speaker may dispense with organizational and
legislative business;
(b) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved if applicable; and
(c) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the periods addressed
by sections 3 and 4 of this resolution as though under clause
8(a) of rule I.
Sec. 6. Each day during the periods addressed by sections
3 and 4 of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar
day for purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution
(50 U.S.C. 1546).
Sec. 7. Each day during the periods addressed by sections
3 and 4 of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative
day for purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
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 my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, most of what you just heard from the
Reading Clerk you could have heard during the previous 4 hours of
testimony that we have been taking in the Rules Committee this morning.
I understand there was no other game in town going on this morning, so
if folks were tuning in to C-SPAN, they were treated to my friend from
Massachusetts, our ranking member from New York, our chairman from
Texas, and all the gang there on the Rules Committee as we worked
through this.
But forbid the thought if someone else had something else on their
mind this morning, I want to go through just briefly what you heard
from our Reading Clerk.
This is a single rule that provides for consideration of two
measures. The first is the Senate amendment to H.R. 1370. It is
continuing appropriations to make sure the lights stay on and the
checks go out the door. It makes in order a motion to concur in the
Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of this
continuing resolution.
To debate that, Mr. Speaker, we provide an hour of debate divided
between the chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee. I think every Member of this Chamber understands the nature
of this legislation, but we provided that time nonetheless.
The second measure is H.R. 4667. It is the disaster aid package.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, this House has been working through, in a
bipartisan way, funding our neighbors who have been so dramatically
affected by disasters, whether in the Virgin Islands, in Puerto Rico,
in Florida, in Texas, or the devastating wildfires in California. This
has been a national focus, and billions of dollars have already gone
out the door to meet the initial emergency needs. This is an additional
appropriations measure.
{time} 1230
It comes under a closed rule, Mr. Speaker, but it does self-execute
two amendments that had been offered: an amendment by Mrs. Mimi Walters
and an amendment by Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
It also provides for an hour of debate, equally divided between the
chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and it
provides for a motion to recommit for the minority.
The rest of what you heard from the Reading Clerk, Mr. Speaker, was
that typical language that you hear at the end of the year when Members
are going to be traveling, to allow for the housekeeping that takes
place here, to allow the House to continue to function as the
traditional authorities provided in December and January during the
district work period.
With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I think we have exhaustively debated
these issues. I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Let's get on to
the underlying measures.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we are strongly opposed to this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say to my colleagues that this is really a sad
day, not only for the institution, but for the United States of
America.
It is frustrating that we are here today doing a third continuing
resolution. For those who are watching these proceedings, we should be
actually passing appropriations bills that fund the government for an
entire year. We shouldn't be funding the government week to week, month
to month.
Yet my Republican friends have ended up doing just that. They can't
seem to get their act together, notwithstanding they are in control of
the House of Representatives, they are in control of the United States
Senate, and they are in control of the White House. They simply cannot
govern. They are lucky that the American people can't sue them, because
they would be sued for political malpractice.
The one thing that they are supposed to do is to keep this government
running and to keep the lights on, yet we lurch from one crisis to
another crisis to another crisis to another crisis.
[[Page H10350]]
Today, what they are saying is: Let's kick the can down the road
until January 19. You know what will happen then?
Another crisis. Then we will be in the same situation, and we will
probably kick the can down the road another few weeks.
That is not the way government is supposed to run. People need
certainty, and this Congress has delivered anything but certainty. It
has to stop. It is frustrating.
A solution, if I can be so bold as to suggest a solution to dealing
with some of the problems that the Republican leadership is
confronting, might be a little bipartisanship, might be opening up this
process a little bit, might be a little bit more deliberation on the
floor of the House of Representatives.
There are a couple of ways they can govern. One is, they can govern
in a way where they respect all points of view, where they actually
respect the viewpoint of the minority, where they open the process up
so the minority can, every once in a while, offer some amendments and
offer some alternatives, where they negotiate on spending bills in good
faith, where they know they are not going to get everything and the
minority knows they are not going to get everything, but they end up in
a compromise that is good enough to get bipartisan support.
That is the way things used to be done around here. I don't know why
it is so difficult to get back to those days, but if they want the
government to run better, that is what they need to do. They have to
stop this my-way-or-the-highway approach to every single piece of
legislation that comes before this body.
My friends have had more closed rules than any other session of
Congress. This is the most closed session in the history of the
Congress. That is what this session will go down in history as being:
the most closed session in the history of Congress.
They have used martial law, they have used closed rules, they have
had emergency meetings, all to try to get us to this point where we are
kicking the can down the road for a couple of weeks. That is it.
What we should have been doing is working together not only to keep
the government open, but we ought to have been working together to
raise the caps.
Democrats want a strong national defense. We also need an equal
increase in our domestic budget, which includes critical national
security functions and commitments to hardworking families.
My friends ought to know that one-third of the nondefense domestic
budget goes to national security, veterans, homeland security, and the
State Department's and the Justice Department's counterterrorism
initiatives.
I would also say that supporting housing initiatives and investing in
education and environmental protection so that our fellow citizens
don't have to drink water that is contaminated with lead is also a part
of our national security.
We ought to have been working in a bipartisan way to resolve all of
these issues together.
We need to work to fund the opioid epidemic. What we have done in
this Congress is given lots of speeches about how terrible this opioid
epidemic is. We have talked about the need to support our local
communities.
We have done a lot of talking, but what we need to do is appropriate
the necessary money so that local communities can implement the
strategies to effectively deal with the opioid crisis in their areas.
We ought to have been focusing on that.
We need additional veterans funding. Democrats are urging Republicans
to join us to provide urgently needed resources to veterans facing a
dire shortfall at the VA, meeting our responsibility to ensure that no
veteran is left behind or denied the care and opportunities they
deserve upon return from the battlefield.
CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and community health
centers are incredibly important to us and people throughout this
country. We are calling for immediate reauthorization of these vital
initiatives, one that doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul, one that doesn't
say we are going to fund CHIP by taking money away from the prevention
program that provides moneys for immunizations and dealing with issues
like lead paint and other issues that affect our kids.
We need emergency disaster relief that is adequate to meet the needs
of all the States and localities and territories that have been
impacted by these terrible natural disasters.
We need to save Americans' endangered pensions. Millions of
hardworking Americans' pensions are at risk, and we are calling for
bipartisan action to enact a responsible reform plan to ensure that
these struggling pensions will keep on going.
We also believe that we ought to pass the bipartisan Dream Act that
we spent a lot of time in the Rules Committee talking about today.
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi; Minority Whip Steny Hoyer; and the head
of the Hispanic Caucus, Michelle Lujan Grisham, spent many hours at the
Rules Committee today. Leader Pelosi was there for 2\1/2\ hours
testifying on the need to pass the bipartisan Dream Act.
We ought to do that before we go home for Christmas. There are
800,000-plus people whose lives are in the balance because, on
September 7, Donald Trump decided to end protection for the DREAMers.
Here is what the President I don't think appreciates and what some of
my colleagues I think don't appreciate, but we learned about this today
in the Rules Committee: we don't have until March to deal with the
Dream Act. Each and every day, people are losing their status. On
average, about 122 a day, we are told.
So there are people who are here who had the protections under DACA
who are losing their status, losing their jobs, losing their
livelihoods, and their lives have been thrown into turmoil.
Why in the world would we do that?
The majority of Americans, overwhelmingly Democrats and Republicans
and Independents, all believe we should protect the DREAMers.
We heard in the Rules Committee: Well, we need more committee
deliberation. Again, the President took their protections away on
September 7. It is now December 21.
What have you been doing?
They said: Well, the Judiciary Committee needs to do more hearings.
Well, what have they been waiting for?
The Judiciary Committee recently set up a bill, the concealed carry
reciprocity bill, which allows people from States that have almost no
standards to issue permits for people to carry concealed weapons to be
able to go to any State in this country, no matter what those States'
standards may be, basically endangering my constituents.
They brought that to the Rules Committee. They had time to bring that
before the Rules Committee and before the House. There was not a single
hearing. None.
We had this tax scam bill that we just voted on where 83 percent of
the tax breaks go to the top 1 percent of the wealthiest in this
country. Remember that bill that the President just celebrated with all
my Republican friends?
That came before this House, and there wasn't a single hearing on it.
But now we need to have hearings when it comes to protecting the
DREAMers.
It is outrageous. These DREAMers are contributing to the betterment
of our communities. We should celebrate them. We should value them.
They have served in our military. They are out front leading disaster
relief efforts, saving lives. They are working in Fortune 500
companies. They are going to school. They are valued members of our
community. And we treat them like this?
Come on. If we brought the Dream Act to the floor, it would pass with
Democratic support and a big chunk of Republican support. There is
absolutely no reason to continue to stall on this issue. All that will
happen as a result of our stalling is that more people will lose their
status, more lives will be thrown into turmoil.
I would just say to my colleagues: It is the Christmas season. This
is a time, if ever, where the spirit ought to take over, and we ought
to do something good for the American people, not just for the donors,
but for the people.
Giving a tax break to corporations and wealthy people will help with
the fundraisers, but what we need is to help these people, these
DREAMers whose lives are in the balance. We can't wait.
[[Page H10351]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, allow
us to bring up a standalone Dream Act or an amendment that would allow
the Dream Act to be made in order, and I hope that we can get back to
regular order.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this time of year folks get rightfully exorcised about
the issues of the day.
We all came here to do something for the men and women whom we
represent back home. Every time we get to the end of a year, we think:
I have got to get it done; I have got to get it done; I have got to get
it done. I recognize those passions are going to exist.
I actually don't believe for a minute that my friend from
Massachusetts believes my vote in favor of the tax bill had anything to
do with fundraising or my donors. He might believe that about somebody
in this Chamber--I hope that he does not--but I know he doesn't believe
it about me. It just isn't true.
I have been fighting for tax reform since the day I was elected. In
fact, I ran for this job to fight for tax reform. We do the American
people a disservice when we suggest something nefarious is going on.
Sometimes we just disagree, Mr. Speaker, and those disagreements are
okay. In fact, those disagreements are expected. Our Founders intended
them, and they created this institution to sort those disagreements
out. So I hope we won't sell either ourselves or the American people
short in that regard.
But I do want to agree with my friend that this is frustrating. It is
frustrating to be here for a continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker.
Remember that we passed the National Security and Defense
Appropriations bill in July of this year. We have waited patiently for
the Senate to be able to take it up, and it has not.
We passed all of the appropriations bills, Mr. Speaker, before the
end of the fiscal year, back in September, and we have been waiting for
the Senate to take those up. It has not. It is an incredibly
frustrating time.
Now, my friend suggested a solution would be bipartisanship. I could
not agree with him more. It takes 60 votes to move something through
the Senate. I just barely have over 50 Republicans. The only way these
funding bills are going to move through the Senate is with bipartisan
support. For anyone in this Chamber to deny that is going to be to deny
the reality of math. Bipartisanship is the solution.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, when my President invited the Democratic
leadership down to the White House to work on exactly this issue a
month ago. Folks got frustrated with the tweet he sent out that morning
and decided they were going to stay home.
I understand the frustrations. What I don't understand is missing out
on an opportunity to build this bridge. It happens above my pay grade,
I am going to confess. To the 700,000 people I represent back home, Mr.
Speaker, let me go ahead and confess this deal is taking place way
above my pay grade.
But it is probably right there at the pay grade of the President of
the United States, the Speaker of the House, and the minority leader.
When folks don't show up to the table for the conversation, it makes it
harder to get there.
Is there always a good reason to stay home?
I am sure there is.
Are there more good reasons to be there?
I think the answer is: Yes.
Mr. Speaker, I will advise my friend from Massachusetts that I don't
have any speakers remaining this morning. Folks have been exhaustibly
elucidated by the 4 hours of discussion we had this morning, and I am
prepared to close when he is.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of concerns about the way this process is
unfolding.
And, yes, the gentleman is right. I am exorcised. I am exorcised that
we have gone through all of these gyrations, including being on hold
trying to figure out what we were going to bring to the floor all night
last night, and we end up with this: basically kicking the can down the
road for a few weeks and not dealing with some essential emergency
priorities that are a concern to most people in this country.
Again, going back to this tax bill, that is an example of where
bipartisanship might have been helpful. I don't recall a tax reform
package--I don't even want to call it reform because, basically, it is
a giveaway to big corporations and to wealthy special interests--that
has been rammed through Congress purely on a partisan basis.
But maybe it had something to do with the fact that Democrats weren't
welcome to the table.
Maybe it had to do with the fact that Democrats were locked out.
Maybe it had something to do with the fact that this so-called
conference committee was a sham and, when Democrats showed up, a deal
had already been struck.
That is not bipartisanship.
And maybe we are a little bit exorcised because, time and time again,
when people go before the Rules Committee looking to offer legitimate,
germane amendments to try to improve legislation, rather than being
able to have the opportunity to offer those amendments on the floor and
have a debate, we are shut out all the time.
Again, this Congress, this Republican Congress, this session, has the
distinction of being the most closed session in the history of our
country. That is the distinction.
So, yes, we are exorcised. And we are exorcised over the fact that,
as we are about to adjourn for Christmas, hundreds of thousands of
people, DREAMers in this country, their lives have been thrown into
turmoil. These are people who have served in our military. They have
led rescue efforts during these recent hurricanes. They contribute
greatly to our community. A majority of people in this country want
them to remain here, and we can't even get a vote on the House floor,
notwithstanding the fact that we all know that, if we brought it to the
floor, we would pass it.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has prioritized their tax scam
bill over reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program,
community health centers, helping DREAMers, and even funding our
government, which brings us to where we are now, days before Christmas,
scrambling to fulfill our most basic responsibilities.
But we should be doing more here than just trying to keep the lights
on. We also have a responsibility toward the hundreds of thousands of
young Americans--they are Americans in every way except on paper--who
have been betrayed by this administration. We need to pass the Dream
Act, and we need to do it now. Thirty-four of my Republican colleagues
have already spoken up and urged Speaker Ryan to help these young
people. The majority of this House is ready to do the right thing.
Mr. Speaker, here is our chance to do just that. If we defeat the
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up
H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. The bipartisan, bicameral legislation has the
support of the majority of this House and would pass if it were brought
up for a vote.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am all in favor of keeping our government
open. The difference that I have with my Republican colleagues is that
I want to keep it open for everyone.
Here, at Christmas, we think of the children first, but the children
are not put first in this underlying bill. The Children's Health
Insurance Program (CHIP) is barely left on life support.
There are children out there right now, some with dreaded diseases or
disabilities, and their access to a family physician is not assured
because this Congress has not acted on the Children's Health Insurance
Program. Instead of Christmas cards, they are about to get cancellation
notices.
[[Page H10352]]
And there are children who were brought here to America, through no
fault of their own, without a visa. They grew up here. They only know
this country. They have since passed a criminal background check. They
had paid a fee, but their future is uncertain. They are called DREAMers
because they have a dream of giving back to America and being full
Americans, which they are, in everything but those legal papers.
And we, in Congress, have our own responsibility. It is a
responsibility to respond to their passionate pleas. We should not
support another partisan Republican continuing resolution or
appropriations process that does not assure the future of our 800,000
DREAMers.
I can tell you, from meeting with them personally, I think of a
cardiac nurse, I think of a county prosecutor, I think of a number of
teachers whom I have met and many students, all of whom are DREAMers,
who want to be full Americans. And I think of the groups in Texas like
RAICES and TOPS and JOLT and the University Leadership Initiative and a
number of others that are working with these DREAMers to secure their
future.
Even President Trump, in one of his few reasonable tweets, in
September, said:
``Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated, accomplished
young people who have jobs, some serving in the military?''
I think the answer here, if given a free vote, Republicans and
Democrats, the majority would say absolutely not; we need these young
people.
This holiday season is one that you would hope would open closed
hearts to see the humanity in these young people. But amidst all the
self-congratulatory high-fives and patting on the back yesterday down
at the White House, nothing was said about the DREAMers. The Republican
leadership has apparently decided to leave town without doing anything
for them.
I believe that the Dream Act, the DACA authorization they have now,
was terminated by the President just to use them as a bargaining chip.
That was way back in September. And since that time, the majority has
had ample opportunity to act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that all of us as Members
of Congress are eager to return to our families as soon as possible
across America, but our DREAMers are left with fear and uncertainty
about returning to their families and about their future.
These deserving young people should not be used as bargaining chips
for a wish list of anti-immigrant policies. Let's reject this rule,
enact the Dream Act, reauthorize CHIP, and offer a truly Merry
Christmas and Happy New Year to all of America's children.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, here, in these cold days outside, it is easy to create a
lot of rhetorical heat on the inside. I would argue that legislative
light is what we need more often than not.
We brought the Children's Health Insurance Program bill to the floor
that my friend from Texas just referenced, Mr. Speaker. We didn't just
bring it to the floor; we brought it through committee. We brought it
through committee, and we passed it. We brought it to the House floor,
and we passed it. We sent it to the Senate, and there it sits.
But when it passed the House floor, my friend from Texas voted
``no.'' He voted ``no.''
Now, do I believe for a moment that is because he hates children? I
do not.
Do I believe for a moment that it is because he doesn't want folks to
have access to healthcare? I do not. I believe he had legitimate policy
reasons for deciding not to reauthorize the program then that he has
just taken to the floor and talked about the merits of reauthorizing.
It is okay to disagree on those issues, and it is even okay to
highlight those differences. What is not okay is to describe this
Chamber as a Chamber that doesn't care. What is not okay is to describe
this as a Chamber that doesn't act.
My friend was absolutely right: it is a bipartisan priority to fund
the Children's Health Insurance Program, and we did. The Senate has not
acted. It hasn't gotten the full reauthorization done. If we pass the
continuing resolution today, that funding will continue.
Let's disagree on those things that we disagree about, but let's be
honest with ourselves about the legitimacy of those disagreements.
Let's try to find more light than heat in this new year.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, my dear friend that just spoke with
reference to acting, let me tell you what action was undertaken with
reference to CHIP.
Prevention money was used as the pay-for. So, somehow or another,
that action doesn't rub some of us in the right way.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Congressional
Black Caucus to Speaker Paul Ryan.
Congressional Black Caucus,
December 21, 2017.
Paul Ryan,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the Congressional Black
Caucus (CBC), I write today to strongly urge you to provide a
more permanent solution for close to 9 million children
enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
and more than 27 million people that visit Community Health
Centers (CHC's) for critically needed health care. It is
completely irresponsible for Congressional Leaders to have
created this crisis. Moreover, it is now unconscionable for
Congress to head home for the holidays without taking action
to right this wrong.
The holidays are a time to reflect on how fortunate we are
and help those in need. In that vein, the CBC will not
support a Continuing Resolution unless CHIP is reauthorized
and fully funded for five years and Community Health Centers
are reauthorized and fully funded for two years. Moreover,
the offsets for these programs must not harm other vulnerable
communities by reducing funding for other programs, such as
the Prevention Fund. For this to be the state of play one day
after giving away $1.5 trillion to huge corporations and the
wealthy is absurd and offensive.
Close to 2 million children across this country are in
danger of losing CHIP coverage in January, with another 1
million set to lose coverage in February. A short term
approach to providing these children and their families with
certainty is absolutely irresponsible. Without swift
reauthorization and fully funded coverage, young lives hang
in the balance. Congress' failure to act will set off a chain
of dire-consequences for children, as well as their families,
communities, and states. A family without insurance is a
family more likely to fall victim to financial crisis related
to medical costs, such as bankruptcy.
Similarly, Community Health Centers play an essential role
in low-income communities as they protect and expand access
to critical and affordable care. The Community Health Centers
Fund (CHCF) provides mandatory funding for federal health
centers, which provide primary, dental, and other supportive
care in medically underserved areas. Robust and reliable
support for Community Health Centers results in more health
centers, an increased number of patient visit, and more
available services. These services save lives, especially in
communities struggling to provide affordable care to poor,
largely minority communities.
The CHCF is even more essential to the more than 27 million
people it helps support in light of recent efforts to the
dismantle our nation's health insurance market. As you well
know, the elimination of the Affordable Care Act's individual
mandate will add 13 million uninsured Americans, increase
premiums by 10 percent, and make it harder for sick people to
get insurance.
The Congressional Black Caucus has been the conscience of
this Congress since its inception in 1971. We have provided
moral leadership and courageous advocacy for our constituents
and for all Americans that have felt disenfranchised or left
behind. At the time of year when we are supposed to be most
charitable, it is urgent that Congress act to reauthorize
CHIP and Community Health Centers and provide robust funding
for both. Children and families do not need to spend the
holidays worrying about their health. It is time for Congress
to do what it is responsible and moral. Accordingly, the CBC
will not support any legislation to prevent a shutdown unless
these critical programs are addressed.
Sincerely,
Cedric Richmond,
Chair.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I lift from it one paragraph that says:
The holidays are a time to reflect on how fortunate we are
and help those in need. In that vein, the Congressional Black
Caucus will not support a continuing resolution unless CHIP
is reauthorized and fully funded
[[Page H10353]]
for 5 years and community health centers are reauthorized and
fully funded for 2 years.
Mr. Speaker, this morning in the Rules Committee, beginning at 8--I
might add, we were noticed that we were going to meet last night at 10,
but we did not meet, and then we came in early this morning--the
distinguished minority leader and the minority whip, along with the
leader of the Hispanic Caucus, appeared and stayed for 2\1/2\ hours
discussing the fact that we are leaving things on the table, but, more
specifically, addressing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
program.
But let's talk about the things that we are leaving on the table:
We are doing nothing about long-term flood insurance.
We are doing nothing about Perkins loans that have expired.
We are not funding or addressing the opioid epidemic.
We are not offering legislation to help save failing pensions in this
country.
I talked with some teamsters from Michigan the other day with tears
in their eyes concerned about their pensions.
We are doing nothing with reference to long-term, bipartisan
reauthorizing for CHIP and community health centers.
We are doing nothing about the FISA reauthorization.
We are not raising the defense and non-defense spending caps.
We are leaving Medicare extension on the table.
And that is just a to-do list that is partial that we are not
addressing.
But let me get in the weeds on something that the public doesn't
quite understand.
196 people appeared right over here and signed what is called a
discharge petition to bring DACA to the floor; 34 Members of the House
of Representatives sent a letter to the Speaker. If you combine those
numbers, you have 218.
My distinguished Rules Committee chair and I had a colloquy this
morning where we discussed that matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Florida an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HASTINGS. And the fact of the matter is I believe that it would
pass if it were put on the floor.
But do you know what is more important? We had 58 closed rules in
this Congress, completely closed. And to put that into context, we
averaged 25 closed rules a year in the 4 years the Democrats were in
charge.
The Dream Act is a perfect example of this. As Members are well
aware, we have tried time and time again to get a floor vote on the
Dream Act.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that this CR is the last train leaving town.
You have given millionaires and billionaires help. Let's give the
DREAMers a Merry Christmas.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My friend from Florida is a good accountability partner up on the
Rules Committee. I have learned from his intellect, and I have learned
from his experience in this Chamber. I value that, and I value his
friendship.
When he says that more closed rules have been passed in this Congress
than any other, he is absolutely right. He is absolutely right. And
that is worth talking about, as my friend does regularly in the
committee.
Unfortunately, we usually just have that half of the conversation.
What we don't talk about is that many of those closed rules were for
bills that were so well worked out in a bipartisan way in committee
that there were no amendments offered, that we had already come
together in such a collaborative, productive, admirable way that we
ought to be bragging about instead of denigrating that we didn't have
amendments that were offered.
Other bills, Mr. Speaker, were bills that might not have been so
generally agreed upon. But when my friend the chairman of the Rules
Committee sends the call out to all 435 Members of Congress and says:
If you have any ideas, bring them to the Rules Committee. For many of
those bills, Mr. Speaker, there wasn't one idea suggested, not one idea
suggested to change the underlying bill.
{time} 1300
So did it come under a closed process?
Well, of course, it did, if closed means we ask everybody for all of
their ideas and no one had one, so there was no idea to debate on the
floor.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many ways that we can do better with one
another, but I would suggest to my friends that the way to do better
with one another is to build that on a foundation of trust, not a
foundation of recriminations.
We have an opportunity in this new year, Mr. Speaker, to turn a page
in this institution. I want to say, in my time on the Rules Committee,
Mr. Speaker, I have never had a chairman who worked as hard to open the
process and hear from Members as the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), the current chairman.
Time and time again, where other folks would have walked away from
the table, the chairman has stayed there to get input, to hear ideas.
Time and time again, when the process would have been truncated, he has
extended it to make sure folks had a chance to have their voice heard.
I am grateful for that, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the chairman
for that model that he sets in that committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) to speak on this rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Woodall serves not only the Rules Committee and this
body in the Republican majority, but he is also our designee to the
Budget Committee and has excelled in excess of understanding the
intricate details that not only move this great Nation, but the
arguments, a balance between them. I appreciate the gentleman very,
very much.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer some advice that I just received
from the Governor of the State of Texas, Governor Abbott, who took time
to call me. I also want to address the distinguished gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), my very dear friend.
During that record-setting year, we also made in order over 560
amendments. That is 560 amendments that people came to the Rules
Committee, had literally a committee that engaged them on the substance
of their ideas, listened to it, believed that that substance had a good
place for debate on this floor. Not necessarily every idea should be
vetted here. Sometimes it is vetted in committee, subcommittee.
Sometimes it is vetted at the Rules Committee, and sometimes we do not
make those ideas in order.
This morning was no different. There were a lot of great ideas. As a
matter of fact, the minority leader, Ms. Pelosi, came to the Rules
Committee for several hours. The gentleman, the minority whip, Mr.
Hoyer, came a slightly less amount of time, but no doubt came to the
Rules Committee and offered us advice about not only what we are doing
but presented the arguments about what they were for. They were given
unlimited opportunity to discuss that.
There was some limit that we had to offer our challenges back, but it
was an open process, and I appreciate Ms. Pelosi and all the members of
the committee doing that.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why I came down is to say--and there are lots
of stories that go on, but the story that I was just told by the
Governor of the State of Texas is that Texas--not unlike the islands of
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, the great State of Florida that
were in the way of a hurricane--was record-setting rain, 60 inches. It
lasted 8 or 9 days. It did incredible damage.
This body has taken time to now study getting money back to those
affected areas, and the determination that was made by this body is
some $81 billion. I just found out that the State of Texas has
calculated their part of the $81 billion, and it is less than 15
percent of the total. Less than 15 percent of that total will actually
be going to the largest storm in the history of America.
I did not offer a complaint. I was surprised. I would have thought it
would be in the 50 percent realm. I would have thought it would have
been higher. But what I want to say is that not everybody gets
everything they want in this town, not even if they are the
[[Page H10354]]
Governor of the State of Texas, with a large delegation like Texas.
It is a difficult time we all go through, and I offered and expressed
my confidence to the Governor that I would certainly go look at this.
It is the first time I learned of this. Less than 15 percent of the
emergency funds that will be presumptively agreed to today, of this
huge storm, goes to Texas. I just thought that was worthy of me to take
time to come and pass on information that I had not known about,
information that I was provided. It tells us how large the need is in
this country when the largest storm only gets 15 percent.
So I am a ``yes.'' I am a ``yes'' for the other 85 percent that is
not going to be in Texas also. I am a ``yes'' because I have seen the
fires in California, I have seen the damage from--and Judge Hastings
kept us up to date. I have been aware of Ambassador Patrick Rooney, who
talked with us about the devastation; and Tom Rooney in Florida; and
certainly Byrne Buchanan, who spoke with us about the damage to the
crops--lots of big problems.
I am going to vote for the other 85 percent, too, not just the 15
percent for my home State.
I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me time to share my ideas
on the floor. I wish Judge Hastings a Merry Christmas.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), who spent 2\1/2\ hours today in the Rules
Committee fighting on behalf of the DREAMers.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I also thank all of the members of the Rules Committee for the
exceptional service they provide to the House in reviewing legislation
that will come to the floor.
I particularly want to thank my colleagues on the Democratic side for
honoring the values of our country by advocating for an amendment to
include the Dream Act as we go forward. I would hope that most of our
Members would vote ``no'' on this rule and not allow for the previous
question to come forward so that it will allow for the Dream Act to be
considered.
I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the distinguished
Members on the Republican side, as well as the Democratic side, for the
hospitality extended to the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer; the chair of
the Hispanic Caucus, Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham; and to me.
At that meeting, Mr. Speaker, I told the colleagues that we are in a
tradition of having great Democratic and Republican Presidents who have
been supportive of newcomers to our country and who recognize that
immigration is the constant reinvigoration of America.
When people come to our country with their hopes and dreams and
aspirations to make the future better for their families, they are
identifying with an American ideal: all of us having the responsibility
to make the future better for the next generation. And their
commitment, their courage, their optimism, their determination for a
better future makes America more American. Every newcomer who comes
here with that determination makes America more American.
Among those people are our DREAMers. This is a very discrete group
that we are hoping to protect in the Dream Act. Certainly, as our
colleagues acknowledged this morning, we have important work to do on
comprehensive immigration reform. We have a responsibility to protect
our borders, North and South, and anything that flies in, East Coast,
West Coast, and through the Gulf. But the fact is that--as was pointed
out by our colleague, Congresswoman Lujan Grisham, the chair of the
Hispanic Caucus: think of the DREAMers as a discrete piece that needs
protection now and not wait for the entire comprehensive immigration
reform to be resolved before we deal with this emergency.
Just as we treat CHIP, 9 million children are depending on CHIP, but
we are not waiting until we revise the whole healthcare system in order
to pass CHIP, nor did we. When we passed CHIP, it was before the
Affordable Care Act had passed.
But let me say why it is really important for this to happen now.
Unfortunately--and, really, I was pleased that our Speaker registered
his disagreement with President Trump when he took the action he did in
regard to DACA in September. When he did that and said, ``I will give
Congress until March to pass a law,'' what he didn't understand is that
he was putting these DREAMers at a distinct disadvantage.
Every day, over 100, 120-some DACA recipients, DACA-eligible
recipients, lose their status. That means, if they are working or
whatever they are doing, they lose their status to do that in our
country. Over 10,000 have lost status since the President's
announcement--well over 10,000.
So we can't wait until March to do this because it had consequences
known to us but unforeseen by the White House and by the President. And
I don't think, in his heart, that the President intended to hurt these
people in the very cruel way that they are being hurt by the actions
that are being taken.
We can't wait until March. We need action. We need it soon. We need
it to be bipartisan. That is what we have been working on--not me;
Members, Member-driven bipartisan cooperation in trying to find a path
that addresses the concerns that some have about the border--and we all
do--and also addresses the Dream Act.
As the President said: Let's call it DACA.
Okay. We will call it DACA.
So here we are. I said at the beginning of my remarks that we have
been blessed in our country by Presidents who have recognized the value
of immigration; that our country would be in stagnation if we didn't
have this constant reinvigoration of visitors to our country.
When President Obama acted because Congress had not acted to protect
the DREAMers and their parents, that was really important for him to do
because Congress had not acted. However, it is important to note that
President Reagan, when he was President and President George Herbert
Walker Bush was at that time Vice President, Congress did act through
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. They did act. And
President Reagan's observation was they didn't go far enough.
So he took further executive action called Family Fairness to protect
people in our country, immigrants in our country. Actually, President
Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush protected a higher
percentage of newcomers to our country than President Obama did with
his DACA and DAPA action, a higher percentage because they understood
the value to our country of newcomers.
President Clinton continued all of that. President George W. Bush was
a champion and continues to be a champion on recognizing the value of
immigration. He has spoken about it intellectually, with respect, from
the heart for people coming to our country, and he has urged us to do
so.
He couldn't get the cooperation of his own party when he was
President to cooperate for comprehensive immigration reform, even
though when we had the power as Democrats, we supported it. But he
could not get the 60 votes in the Senate. But, nonetheless, he
continues to be a champion, really, for immigration reform.
And here we have a new President who campaigned on the backs of
newcomers to our country and who made immigrants villains. It is a
complete change from the Republican Party, from a commitment to valuing
newcomers and diversity in our country. It is a complete departure from
President Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, President
George W. Bush, just to name the Republican Presidents.
So we find ourselves in this situation, but that doesn't change the
fact that we have a responsibility to all of God's children to treat
them with respect, and when we can do something to be helpful, we
should.
{time} 1315
There is harm that is coming to the DREAMers every day, because they
are losing status. Regardless of what some may say, some are being
deported. This may be unknown to the President, but it is not unknown
to us in this Congress.
I want to thank Congresswoman Lujan Grisham, the chair of the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and her members. I want to thank
Congresswoman Judy Chu, the chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific
American Caucus; Congresswoman Yvette Clarke,
[[Page H10355]]
who, working with the Congressional Black Caucus, has been a champion
in that caucus; and all of the Members on both sides of the aisle who
are striving to find a path.
One path that we have open to us is to defeat this rule, to allow the
Dream Act to come up, and to put that in the mix as we go forward.
Again, this isn't an issue, this isn't a bill. It is a value, and
that is the conversation we had with President Trump. This isn't an
issue, but it is a value. This is about who we are as a nation and how
we respect who we are as a nation. That is why, I believe, that
President Trump will be receptive to signing a bill. He does want--and
we are all concerned for--border security. We will work with him on
that, but let's start by putting on the Record the support of this
House for a recognition that we are immigrants, by and large. Unless
some of you are Native Americans--and how proud we are of our Native
American community in our country and how blessed we are--most of us
come from immigrant families.
It was interesting to me in doing some reading on some of this. I am
very proud of my own Italian-American heritage. My grandmother was born
in Baltimore, Maryland. Her parents were from Venice and Genoa. My
father's family from Abruzzo. We are very proud of all of that, which
makes us respect the pride that other people take in their heritage.
What was interesting to me in recent days, because I remember--I
didn't suffer this, but I know my father and others did: Italians were
called ``wops.''
Do you know what wops means?
It means ``without papers.'' That is what they were called: without
papers.
These people are without papers, but in every way they are American.
I just want to tell you a couple of stories. One is Fernando Meza
Gutierrez. Fernando lives in my district. Fernando's family came to the
U.S. Fernando came to the U.S. when he was 9 years old. In high school,
Fernando was an AP scholar and received the International Baccalaureate
Diploma and the Achievement Award in Foreign Language for French.
Fernando continued to excel academically at Santa Clara University,
where he graduated cum laude with a double major in biology and French.
Now a third-year doctoral student at UC San Francisco, Fernando also
works at UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, where he
is working hard to provide new insights into many diseases and
disorders.
I just want to tell you one other story. Lisette Diaz was just 6
years old when her family brought her to the U.S. from Chile. Growing
up in Long Island, Lisette excelled in school and was involved in her
community. She went on to attend Harvard, where she received numerous
awards and participated in a variety of extracurricular activities.
Lisette recently graduated from Harvard with honors.
Lisette and other DREAMers have so much to contribute to our country,
but Donald Trump and other Republicans have made their agenda clear.
They want to shut down DACA and DAPA and deport hundreds of thousands
of DREAMers and parents of Americans.
That is what DREAMers think. We don't want them to think that. We
want them to think that the President understands their value, the
value of our DREAMers, and the challenges that they face.
If we don't do something soon, Lisette will be deported back to
Chile, a country where she hasn't lived since she was 6 years old.
There are just thousands and thousands and thousands of stories of
success, of those serving in our military, attending our schools,
teaching our children, working in high-level positions, because they
all have that immigrant attitude of hard work, hard work ethic, a work
ethic, a faith ethic, a family ethic, a sense of community.
In the sense and spirit of community, let's defeat this rule and
allow the Dream Act to come forward.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about what isn't in the bill today, and we
could actually talk a lot longer about what isn't in the bill. It is a
fairly narrowly focused bill, but what is in there, in addition to
funding to keep the government operating, is funding for our community
health centers that we all care so much about; is funding for the
Children's Health Insurance Program--that is a bipartisan issue across
this Chamber--is funding for the Special Diabetes Program. Mr. Speaker,
that is so important to so many families. I can go on and on and on.
Are there things that are not in this bill?
Of course there are, and I look forward to coming back with my
colleagues to address each and every one of those, but there is so much
good that is in this bill, Mr. Speaker. If we conclude this debate to
pass this rule, we can get on and make those things a reality.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Barragan).
Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding.
We are in a critical and urgent time. People's lives are on the line.
On September 5, the President suddenly and cruelly terminated the
DACA program. Since that date, 13,000 DACA recipients have lost their
status and their protections, and every day that Congress delays a
vote, another average of 122 lose their status.
That is why this is urgent, that is why this is important, that is
why we need to act now.
Congress should not wait any longer to act. It cannot turn its back
on these youths, on these immigrants who are leading productive,
positive lives, who are giving back to our communities and contributing
immensely to the economy.
Congress has an opportunity today to show the world our values, that
we are going to protect DREAMers, that we are going to stand with these
young men and women who enrich our country, who only know the United
States as their home. The nearly 800,000 DREAMers are our doctors, our
nurses, our teachers, our neighbors, and they serve in our military and
are protecting us here at home.
But because Congress has not acted and because this Chamber has
failed to act on the DACA issue, DREAMers are living in fear and
uncertainty of their future. They are afraid to go to school. They are
afraid of losing their loved ones at a moment's notice. They are
anxious about whether they will be able to continue to earn their
paychecks and earn a living.
DREAMers are feeling the pain now. They are experiencing the anxiety
now. They are being detained now. These are real people.
Now, I understand their fear and their uncertainty, because, for many
of us, this hits real close to home. I have 8,000 DREAMers who live in
my district. I also have a family member who is a DREAMer. Many are
afraid of being deported to a place where they will be strangers, to a
country they haven't lived in since they were children.
Mr. Speaker, this is the 16th time since DACA's termination that
Democrats are challenging Republicans to take real urgent action to
protect DREAMers by bringing the bipartisan Dream Act to a vote on this
floor.
We must stand up for DREAMers. It is the right thing to do. It is
what Americans want us to do. They want Congress to protect DREAMers
from deportation by an overwhelming majority. It is the moral thing to
do.
Again, this is a bipartisan issue. I have talked to many of my
colleagues across the aisle who want to see a vote on this. I believe
we will pass it overwhelmingly if we could just get this vote.
This is a moment of truth for our Nation. I ask my colleagues to vote
against the previous question so that we can immediately bring the
Dream Act to the floor and provide relief for the nearly 800,000
DREAMers in time for the holiday season.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, you likely did, as I did yesterday, get a wonderful
Christmas card from our friend from California, which I very much
appreciated. She was there with her beautiful family. I appreciate the
sincerity of her words today.
I will just remind this Chamber that we are having that conversation
for
[[Page H10356]]
one reason and one reason only. That is because, when Democrats had the
White House, the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate, but--much like
Republicans today--didn't have 60 votes to get around the filibuster,
instead of President Obama and the Democratic leaders in the House and
the Senate trying to find a bipartisan pathway forward that could get
60 votes, they chose to craft an administrative solution, one that I
thought was illegal, one that I thought was unconstitutional, but chose
to go it alone.
Mr. Speaker, that is not a blame statement. It is an explanation of
some systemic challenges that exist in this place.
I can assure my colleagues, and I am happy to have someone disabuse
me of the notion, but I have yet to see the issue that we have solved
by blaming each other more for it. I have yet to see that pathway to
success.
The pathway I have seen is when folks turn the cameras off, when they
roll up their sleeves, when they decide they don't much care who gets
the credit for a solution, they just want to solve it.
I will put another one on my colleagues' plate, because, again, I
don't doubt their sincerity. Raju is one of my constituents. He is here
on an H1-B visa. His wife, Manju, is here on an H-4 visa. He came to
this country legally 11 years ago. Every few years, he has to renew his
visa, which costs thousands of dollars. When his visa expires, when his
driver's license expires, he has to go back and do it. He is not
complaining. That is what the law of the land said. When he agreed to
come here, he agreed to follow the law of the land. He can't start his
own business. He can't change employers. He is a captive of the visa
program that he came in on. There is no pathway, Mr. Speaker, for Raju
and Manju to get the same benefits that my colleagues are arguing so
passionately for for 800,000 additional people.
Mr. Speaker, the human stories don't begin and end with the DACA
program. Again, a problem that President Obama created; not solved, but
created.
I can go line by line by line of folks who are facing similar
challenges, and I question where the justice is when I can name
constituent after constituent after constituent who has done everything
right, who has paid every dime the government has asked, who has
applied for every piece of paperwork that the government has asked, who
has stood in every line that the government has asked, and there is no
pathway forward for them.
Let's not pretend that there is not common ground that we can come
together on. Let's confess that perhaps we haven't spent enough time
trying to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, all of us are anxious to go home to our
families and our celebrations, but more and more Americans are seeing
every single day, particularly in the last couple days, just how messed
up the values and priorities of the Republican majority really are.
They saw the Republicans go off to the White House and high-fiving
and cheering each other for a tax cut that provides 81 percent of its
benefits to the wealthiest Americans and that blows about a $1.5-
trillion hole in the budget. That means debt and deficit.
Who is left with the coal in the stocking?
We are looking at 9 million children and their parents who are sick,
who have been worrying about how they are going to have the Children's
Health Insurance Program. Yes, we extended it now until March. It
expired in September, but we didn't have time for those children.
We don't have time for the 800,000 young people who are serving this
country right now as DACA recipients. We could pass the Dream Act
today. Let's get our values straight. Let's do better than we are.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from
Massachusetts that I have no further speakers and I am prepared to
close when he is.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman has any
time to share.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman that it
appears I have committed all of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this has been a painful season for so
many of us, from California to Texas to Florida, Louisiana, to Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and so I am still here begging my
colleagues for those who are begging in Texas.
Right now, my local officials are letting my constituents from
Kashmere Gardens share in the public view how desperate they are for
housing money. So this CR and this emergency supplemental should be
separated. But the CR, on the other hand, should be funding CHIP
completely. And DACA, the DREAMers, should be protected completely.
I introduced a bill when Hurricane Harvey came for $164 billion. That
is where we should be, and I know that because of the sacrifice and
loss and devastation. But also, a DREAMer lost his life trying to
rescue my constituents, so, you see, we have a situation that should be
corrected across the board. Fix the DREAMers, but provide for the
hurricane victims.
I will say that we are going to keep on pushing beyond the $81
billion. I am glad the $1 billion that I pushed for for small
businesses is in this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, we have 300,000 homes underwater.
Puerto Rico has no lights in homes; U.S. Virgin Islands, none, no
homes. Key West still needs debris picked up.
What my constituents are saying is, because the lights are out, we
are forgotten; because DREAMers don't have rights, they are forgotten.
So I am not going to stand here and ignore our children, 9 million of
them who need CHIP, or our DREAMers. But I am also going to say that,
whatever is in this for us, which is not a lot, I am going to keep
pushing and fighting for my constituents. And the money that we are
getting, get it to us now--now.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is the Christmas season, so I do want to begin by
thanking the gentleman from Georgia and the distinguished chairman of
the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for always being so polite to me and
to other Democrats on the committee.
But I want to say, in all candor, that, in spite of that, we are
disrespected each and every day when our ideas are shut out and, in
turn, our constituents are disrespected. I represent the same number of
people as the Speaker of the House, as any Republican and any other
Democrat in this Chamber, and yet, routinely, we are told that our
ideas are not welcome.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that every Member of this House, Democrats
and Republicans alike, are entitled to basic respect. We have just gone
through the most closed session in the history of our country, more
than 58 closed rules in this session. Over 1,500 amendments, both
Democratic and Republican amendments, were blocked. That is not what we
were promised by the leadership of this House.
We are disappointed with what we are dealing with today. We are
disappointed with the inaction and lack of support for the CHIP program
and the community health centers funding. We think that is inadequate.
We are disappointed that more funding isn't provided to deal with the
opioid crisis.
I could go on and on and on, but today, we are asking the Speaker to
allow a vote to help the DREAMers, men and women who came here as
children, who have served in our military, who have been first
responders saving lives in these disaster relief efforts, 91 percent
who work and pay taxes. They are important. They are valuable. We
should celebrate them.
I would say to my colleagues this is a matter of decency. The right
and decent thing to do is to help them, not rationalize inaction.
Please, please, for the sake of all that is good about our country,
join us in
[[Page H10357]]
defeating the previous question so we can have an up-or-down vote on
the Dream Act, so we can actually help these 800,000 people, these
young individuals who are giving so much to our country. It is the
right thing to do.
This is the Christmas season. I hope you are all moved to joining us
and to helping these people because, as we have learned, each and every
day that we wait, more and more of them lose their status. They lose
their jobs. Their lives are thrown into deeper turmoil.
It is wrong for us to go home and not deal with this. The decent
thing to do is to vote on the Dream Act.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
There has been a lot of productivity this week. There has been a lot
of work that has gone on this week. I am looking around up there at the
dais with you, Mr. Speaker. I see a lot of unshaven faces. I'm not just
taking about Josef. I am talking about folks who intended to shave and
might not have made it home last night to get that done.
It takes an incredible amount of staff time to do this. So what Mr.
McGovern and I do up in the Rules Committee, our staffs have been there
past midnight time and time again this week and then back in at dawn.
I wish that more of the American people, Mr. Speaker, could see the
hardworking, dedicated staff, the team that goes into making all of
this possible, because I think it would make them proud. I think, in a
season like this, it would lift them up and make them feel better about
who we are as a people and the things that we could accomplish
together.
One of those young people, Mr. Speaker, is Nate Blake on the Rules
Committee. He is sitting right here behind me. He is leaving us after 5
years of service. I want to put that into perspective, Mr. Speaker.
There is not a staff member up here that can't leave today and get
better hours and more money going anywhere else in town. You will work
on Capitol Hill for one reason and one reason only, and that is that
you believe, if only you work hard enough and long enough, you would
make America just a little bit better.
Mr. Blake is one of those believers. We will miss him on the
committee. It is a great honor for me that his very last rule is to be
one of mine, and I thank him for his service.
Mr. Speaker, they often say everything's been said but not everyone
has said it. We don't need to go down that path today. This House has
done its job. It has done its job in a collaborative way. It has done
its job in a way that the American people can be proud of.
If we pass this rule, we will not only fund the government, send
money to the troops, send money to community health centers, send money
to education, send money to courts, send money to the environment; we
will not only take care of those funding responsibilities; we will also
provide those dollars needed for those men and women spread out from
Florida to Texas to California to Puerto Rico to the Virgin Islands.
There is a real human being behind each and every one of these dollars
that will go out the door today.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, vote ``yes'' on this rule so
we can get to that underlying legislation.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Rule, and H.R.
4667, one of the two underlying bills made in order.
H.R. 4667 provides $81 billion in aid to respond to the damage caused
by Hurricanes Irma and Maria, and the wildfires in California.
I thank the Speaker and Rules Committee Chairman Sessions for acting
favorably upon my request to bring this emergency disaster supplemental
to the floor for debate and vote as a stand-alone measure.
Ever since the widespread and catastrophic destruction of Hurricane
Harvey, I have been working closely with the Texas Governor and the
Hurricane Harvey Taskforce to secure the help necessary for the region
to rebuild.
I have witnessed firsthand the pain of storm-weary Houstonians who
lost their homes, their belongings, and in many cases their jobs.
They are struggling and hurting.
So this is personal to me.
The amount of funding provided in the disaster relief package is very
disappointing because it is not nearly sufficient to ameliorate the
suffering still being experienced by the people of the communities in
the areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.
Congress has had more than three months to develop an aid package
that is commensurate to the challenge faced by the affected states and
territories in rebuilding their devastated communities.
Much of this time has been squandered by the Republican congressional
leadership's all-consuming focus on ramming through the Republican Tax
Scam legislation that gives 83 percent of its benefits to the top 1
percent, raises taxes on working and middle-class families, takes away
health insurance from 13 million Americans, explodes the deficit by
$1.5 trillion and the national debt by $1.7 trillion, and will be paid
for by 5.4 trillion in cuts to vital programs Americans depend on,
including an imminent $25 billion reduction in Medicare funding.
Mr. Speaker, on September 6, 2017, ten days after Hurricane Harvey
struck and joined by 44 of our colleagues, I introduced H.R. 3686, the
``Hurricane Harvey Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2017,'' which
provides $174 billion in disaster relief for the areas affected by
Hurricane Harvey, the worst superstorm ever to strike the mainland
United States.
The $174 billion in funding provided by H.R. 3686 represents a
comprehensive response commensurate to the challenge; specifically, my
legislation provides relief in the following amounts:
1. Housing and Community Development Fund: $50 billion
2. FEMA Disaster Relief Fund: $35 billion
3. Army Corps of Engineers--Construction: $15 billion
4. Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies: $13 billion
5. Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program: $33 billion
6. Small Business Disaster Loans Program: $2 billion
7. Emergency Conservation Activities: $650 million
8. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: $321 million
9. National Aeronautics and Space Administration: $50 million
10. Legal Services Corporation: $10 million
11. Army National Guard: $10 million
12. Army Corps of Engineers--Civil Investigations: $150 million
13. Coast Guard: $450 million
14. National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund: $800 million
15. EPA Environmental Programs and Management: $2.5 billion
16. EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund: $7 million
17. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund: $15 million
18. State and Tribal Assistance Grants: $600 million
19. Employment and Training Services: $100 million
20. Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund: $2.5 billion
21. Airport and Airway Trust Fund: $90 million
22. Federal-Aid Highways Emergency Relief Program: $6.5 billion
And that is just for Texas and the areas affected by Hurricane
Harvey; the damage wrought by Hurricane Irma in Florida, and Hurricane
Maria in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands was nearly as great in
dollar terms and equal in the level of misery and suffering inflicted
on the residents.
Mr. Speaker, on September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria made landfall in
Puerto Rico, along the southeastern coast, near the small town of
Yabucoa.
The devastation wrought on that beautiful Caribbean oasis and its 3.5
million inhabitants, our fellow citizens of the United States, is
unimaginable, except perhaps to those of us who have lived through and
survived similar natural disasters, like Hurricanes Harvey and Katrina.
At least 48 people have died as a result of the storm as rescue and
recovery operations proceed, a number likely to rise, especially with
so many elderly, sick, and very young persons at risk.
Much of Puerto Rico's population is still without potable drinking
water and large swaths of the population still lack electrical power.
Hurricane Maria destroyed 80 percent of Puerto Rico's agricultural
industry, including banana, plantain and coffee crops, which translates
into lost income of approximately $780 million.
On August 30, 2017, Hurricane Irma struck, inflicting horrific damage
on the U.S. Virgin Islands of St. Thomas, St. Croix, and St. John, the
Caribbean nations of Barbuda, St. Maarten, Cuba, and Anguilla, before
making landfall in the Florida Keys.
In Florida alone, 6.4 million people were told to evacuate to safety,
leading to days of jammed highways and frantic searches for gasoline
amid one of the nation's largest ever emergency evacuations.
At least 124 persons are known to have lost their lives in Hurricane
Irma, more than
[[Page H10358]]
200,000 Floridians took refuge in shelters, and nearly 6.5 million
homes and businesses were without power.
Mr. Speaker, we do not yet know the full extent of the damage and
devastation suffered by our fellows Americans in Florida, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricanes Irma and
Maria.
But what we do know is that the costs of recovery and reconstruction
will be extensive, best estimates place the cost in the range of $50-
$100 billion.
This puts in perspective the inadequacy of the amount of disaster
relief provided under H.R. 4667 and why more, much more, must be done.
Mr. Speaker, right now, at this very moment, approximately 300,000
Texans--in Port Arthur, in Port Aransas, in Houston and Harris County--
remain homeless or are living in substandard homes with blue tarp roofs
and infected with mold.
Today, residents of the Cashmere Gardens community are meeting with
local government officials to highlight their plight and those of other
residents in the northeastern part of Houston.
They are angry and frustrated and anxious, and who can blame them?
Mr. Speaker, this is personal to them; and it is personal to me.
That is why right now my highest priority is to ensure that funding
that has been made available expeditiously gets in the hands of local
governments so that relief can deliver the resources and services so
desperately needed.
And I will be working with the Texas General Land Office and HUD
Secretary Carson to relieve the emergency housing crisis in my
congressional district and state.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the bipartisan leadership of both
Chambers, and my colleagues in the Texas congressional delegation for
their diligence and commitment in bringing this package to the floor
for debate and vote.
I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey, and Speaker
Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi, and their Senate counterparts for
the work that has been done thus far and for their assistance in the
work that lies ahead.
I also thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey, and T-
HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Diaz-Balart, and Energy and
Water Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Simpson and Ranking Member
Kaptur for including in the legislation before us the following
beneficial measures that I requested, including:
1. Authority to establish and implement a $1 billion pilot program to
provide small business disaster recovery grants, modeled on H.R. 3930,
the ``Hurricane Harvey Small Business Recovery Grants Act,''
legislation I introduced on October 3, 2017 and co-sponsored by 16 of
our colleagues.
2. $75 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Investigations
account, which is to be used in areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey,
Irma, and Maria, and can be used to finance the $3 million Houston-Area
Watershed Assessment Study I have worked to secure and previously
approved by the House.
3. The bill also includes helpful legislative language to ensure that
in awarding CDBG-Disaster Relief funds to states, the Secretary of HUD
should to the maximum extent practicable award grants to units of local
government and public housing authorities that have the financial and
administrative capacity to manage a grant awarded under the program.
Let me describe briefly some of the major provisions contained in the
Disaster Relief Supplemental:
1. FEMA Disaster Relief Fund: $27.5 billion to provide critical
funding to assist the ongoing federal disaster response. Allows up to
$4 billion to be provided for Community Disaster Loans (CDLs).
2. Community Development Block Grants Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR):
$26.1 billion for housing and infrastructure needs, $13.56 billion for
grants to states, tribes, and territories for unmet housing needs and
business losses.
3. $12.5 billion for mitigation efforts to help communities protect
against future disasters.
4. This funding can provide for housing elevation, buyouts in the
flood plain, water/sewer infrastructure enhancements, public
infrastructure hardening (e.g. stormproofing public buildings).
5. Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief: $1.4 billion to
address all current damages to federal highways caused by designated
disasters.
6. $12.11 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to repair existing
damages by natural disasters and for studies and projects to reduce the
risk of future natural disasters, $75 million to expedite studies to
help mitigate future disaster damage.
7. 2.9 billion to help displaced students get back to school. Funding
can be used for both public and private schools.
8. $3.8 billion for agriculture assistance.
9. $1.66 billion for Small Business Administration Disaster Loans to
assist small businesses and homeowners repair or replace real estate,
personal property, machinery and equipment, and inventory and business
assets.
Mr. Speaker, there is much more work to be done in my city of
Houston, and across the areas affected by the terrible, awesome storm
that will be forever known simply as Hurricane Harvey, and by
Hurricanes Irma and Maria.
That is why I am disappointed that only $81 billion is being provided
at this time.
That is why it must be emphasized and understood that this can only
be understood as a partial response because much more funding will be
needed to provide our fellow Americans in Texas, Florida, Louisiana,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands the help and support they need
to restore their communities to their previous greatness.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 670 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 8. 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. 9. 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.''
[[Page H10359]]
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,
Mr. McGOVERN. 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;
Suspending the rules and passing S. 1393; and
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232,
nays 188, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 704]
YEAS--232
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 (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
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
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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
Neal
Nolan
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
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
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--11
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Foster
Granger
Jones
Kennedy
Napolitano
Pocan
Renacci
Smith (TX)
Suozzi
{time} 1402
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 188, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 705]
AYES--228
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (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
Gowdy
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
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roby
[[Page H10360]]
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)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--188
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
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
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
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)
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
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
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)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
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--15
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Foster
Garamendi
Gosar
Granger
Jones
Kennedy
Napolitano
Palmer
Pascrell
Pocan
Renacci
Smith (TX)
Suozzi
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1410
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.
____________________