[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H503-H512]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 195, FEDERAL 
 REGISTER PRINTING SAVINGS ACT OF 2017; WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 
6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS; 
    AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 696 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 696

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 195) 
     to amend title 44, United States Code, to restrict the 
     distribution of free printed copies of the Federal Register 
     to Members of Congress and other officers and employees of 
     the United States, 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 115-55. 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.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of January 20, 2018.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of January 20, 2018, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

[[Page H504]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and ordered 
a rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 195, the 
Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act of 2018. The rule provides 
for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the 
fourth continuing resolution to fund the government for the fiscal year 
2018. In bringing up this bill, the House is fulfilling its primary 
obligation to the American people: to fund the government and keep the 
government open and operating.
  With the package under consideration today, Congress will fund the 
government through February 16, 2018. We will provide crucial dollars 
to keep the government functioning, to support our troops and the 
military, and to ensure we are all working for the American people. We 
will provide time to negotiate a larger agreement on funding the 
government for the remainder of the fiscal year, as well as a badly 
needed immigration reform measure.
  In addition to funding the government, this bill also includes 
several other important provisions. Most notably, it reauthorizes the 
Children's Health Insurance Program--or CHIP, as it is popularly 
known--for 6 years. It also implements critical delays in certain taxes 
imposed by the Affordable Care Act, including a 2-year delay for the 
medical device tax, a 2-year delay for the so-called Cadillac tax on 
health insurance plans, and a 1-year delay on the health insurance tax.
  As a supporter of repealing and replacing the entire Affordable Care 
Act, I am gratified to see this delay in imposing these harmful taxes 
on the American people.
  Finally, I am also pleased that this bill provides additional funding 
for ballistic missile defense, which is of crucial importance when 
dealing with rogue states like North Korea.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2017, Congress actually got a great deal done. The 
House and the Senate have worked with President Trump to do more to 
deregulate the economy and free small businesses from harmful 
regulations than any previous Congress.
  The Senate has been productive in overhauling the judicial branch, 
confirming a new Supreme Court Justice and 12 judges for the courts of 
appeals. The House and the Senate have approved and passed into law a 
new National Defense Authorization Act, which will provide new tools to 
rebuild and strengthen our military in the face of global threats.
  We have passed two supplemental appropriations bills to deal with the 
damage caused by multiple disasters across the country, and I am 
confident we will pass a third in the days ahead.
  Above all, the crown jewel in this first year of the 115th Congress 
has been the passage of major tax reform legislation, which will boost 
the economy, reduce the tax burden on workers, support working 
families, and simplify and modernize our burdensome Tax Code. I am 
particularly pleased this bill included the repeal of the ObamaCare 
individual mandate.
  The place where Congress has not gotten its job done is in the 
appropriations process. This is not the fault of the House of 
Representatives. Under the leadership of Chairman Black, the House 
wrote and passed a budget for FY18--fiscal year '18--in April. Through 
the efforts of Chairman Frelinghuysen and the other members of the 
Appropriations Committee, the House wrote and passed all 12 
appropriations bills prior to the start of the fiscal year.
  However, our friends in the Senate have failed to act. We have been 
waiting for over 120 days--4 months--for the Senate to either act on 
our bills or write their own and send us passed appropriations 
legislation to consider. The Senate has not done so. Given their 
failure to act, we need yet another additional short-term CR to ensure 
the government remains open.

                              {time}  1345

  It is my hope, in the interim, that the leaders of the two Chambers 
and the President will be able to come together to determine what our 
spending top lines will be for the fiscal year 2018. Once that happens, 
all the interested parties can meet to put together a bipartisan and 
bicameral full-year spending bill.
  If the leadership of both Chambers come to an agreement, I am 
confident that the appropriators can produce bills to fund the 
government in fiscal year 2018 and begin the important task of 
producing a budget for fiscal year 2019.
  Let me be crystal clear about the consequences of voting against the 
underlying legislation:
  A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote against 
reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program.
  A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote to tax the health 
insurance plans of millions of Americans.
  A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote to tax the 
medical devices that millions of Americans rely on.
  A vote against the underlying legislation is a vote against badly 
needed funds to protect America against missile attacks from rogue 
states like North Korea.
  And a vote against the underlying legislation is a vote to shut down 
the government of the United States.
  I hope every Member on both sides of the aisle understands these 
consequences and votes accordingly.
  Mr. Speaker, today's CR accomplishes several important tasks and 
keeps our government open and operating. But there is still more work 
to be done. In the words of Winston Churchill: ``Give us the tools, and 
we will finish the job.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the Chamber finds itself in much the same position it 
was in on September 8, December 7, and December 21. Those were the 
other three continuing resolutions that we passed to try to get through 
here, but we are rushing again with one of the majority's short-term 
continuing resolutions with days to spare--actually, tomorrow--one day 
to spare until the great Government of the United States closes for 
business.
  Now, you might think that would be the most important thing on the 
minds of the majority and of the United States Government, but it isn't 
because we are not going to get to vote on this tonight until 7 p.m.--
and all the people in the country who are holding their breath to see 
whether they are going to be laid off, the Federal workers, and all the 
other things that go with that devastating thing.
  Let me remind you that the last time the government had a shutdown, 
$24 billion was lost to the economy, a lot of it to laid-off workers, 
and also the fact that large numbers of facilities owned by the 
government have stores and newspaper stands in them that were also 
closed.
  But, no, we are not in any hurry today. Nobody is concerned about it, 
and the President of the United States and several Members of the House 
have gone to a political rally in Pennsylvania. They are trying to save 
a congressional seat there of a person who was forced to step down. 
That, obviously, is of more importance to them than whether or not this 
government continues to function.
  That is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, but that is what we have been putting 
up with for a long time.
  I don't recall a time we have had four continuing resolutions in 
probably a month and a half, but here we are, and I bet you that we 
will come back in February and do yet another one.
  Now, my colleagues who have gone to Pennsylvania could have gone next 
week--because we are taking another week off back to the district next 
week--and not caused this great hubbub today, which is one of the most 
important days in the life of the Nation as to whether we are going to 
continue to be the Government of the United States.
  It is tragic, isn't it?
  I remember I was on the floor the last time it shut down, and at 
midnight I had said: The government of the United States is now closed. 
I would

[[Page H505]]

hate to be up here to have to say something like that again.
  I don't know what else to call it except incompetence. That certainly 
comes as close to the definition as I can make.
  But this latest proposal that we will not vote on until after 7 
p.m.--and I understand that will inconvenience some people, but I do 
hope that other people will be able to stand the suspense. This is the 
fourth continuing resolution since the end of the fiscal year in 
September, and it will run, as I said before, through February 16, 
where I bet you we do another one.
  If past is prologue, we probably will find ourselves back because 
what we do in this House now is be a standby person while the majority 
goes from one self-imposed crisis to the next. And much like the 
proposals before it, this continuing resolution is not the product of 
bipartisan negotiations. It was written solely by the majority without 
a single Democratic fingerprint anywhere on the bill.
  America, pay heed to that. If this government should shut down, this 
problem is solely that of the Republican Party. We were not asked for 
our input when it was written in the back room, but since its public 
release hours ago, the majority has being asking for our support and 
saying what a shame it is, what a shame that we who don't even believe 
in this particular thing are not out there beating the drum for it.
  But that is not how it works. The majority cannot craft this bill 
solely by itself and fail to address the matters that we agree we need 
to take action on and then criticize us for not supporting this 
partisan proposal.
  We had an idea we would come to this point for some time, and I think 
everybody will agree with me, certainly on my side, and I suspect on 
both, that our leader, the minority leader, Nancy Peolsi, certainly 
made herself clear all the way through as to what it would take to get 
the votes of the Democrats in the House. But there was no consideration 
given to that, and yet they are asking us for votes.
  This stopgap measure continues to just chip away at the Affordable 
Care Act--and I know my colleague said he was happy about that--by 
targeting some key funding mechanisms under the law. I suppose I 
probably did the rule on at least the vast majority of all the times 
repeal and replace was the fashion here, and I have always asked every 
single time: Why does the Republican Party want to take healthcare away 
from people? I have never gotten an answer to that, but I am totally 
convinced, after all this time, that that is exactly what they want to 
do.
  Since the majority waived the rules requiring the provisions to be 
paid for for the healthcare act, it is actually a massive tax cut for 
the health insurance industry. It comes on the heels of the majority's 
tax cut for the wealthy and corporations, which represents the largest 
transfer of wealth from working families to the wealthy that our Nation 
has ever seen. It is a bill that made tax cuts for corporations 
permanent.
  Now, the continuing resolution before us today includes a temporary 
reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which 
provides healthcare for 9 million of America's children. That was only 
to be for 6 years. But, as you heard already from a previous speaker 
this morning, had it been made permanent, it would save over $6 
billion. I fail to understand the economic benefits of what they are 
doing here.
  Mr. Speaker, why is the majority giving permanent tax cuts to 
corporations but it won't even give permanency to children in need of 
healthcare? The majority believes that a temporary reprieve on CHIP 
will force us to vote for this misguided plan. But what about the 
community health centers? What about improving healthcare for veterans?
  The continuing resolution turns a blind eye to victims in desperate 
need of help in the wake of some of the worst hurricanes, mudslides, 
and wildfires our Nation has ever experienced and to 700,000 DREAMers 
who remain at risk of being deported following President Trump's 
decision to end DACA.
  Remember what DACA was about. We asked young people who had been 
brought to the United States by their parents at a very young age to 
come out and to register and say that they were undocumented and that 
we would protect them as a way to citizenship. But instead, that was 
taken away from them, and they face deportation and are being deported 
daily--and it is an emergency.
  But it also fails to take any action, this particular CR does, on 
bipartisan priorities like the pension crisis, veterans healthcare, 
and, as I said, the community health centers.
  What has the majority prioritized instead of crafting a long-term 
spending bill that deals with these urgent issues? Ideological crusades 
like undermining financial reform laws and attacking women's health.
  We had a wonderful debate just before this bill came on the floor of 
a thing called Born-Alive. We passed a bill I think unanimously, and I 
think it was done by voice vote, in 2002, that any infant born in an 
abortion setting would be given every care in the world, and, in fact, 
we didn't even need that bill. That is a given.
  At the same time, though, that we are debating that on the floor 
today, that is to do every medical thing possible, the administration 
announced that, if a provider--a nurse, a doctor, or anybody in a 
medical setting, and they don't have to give any reason for this--if 
they personally or for some other reason, morality reason, decide they 
do not want to treat a patient before them, they don't have to.
  Think about that a minute. Well, you know what I am trying to say 
here. It is more than ironic. It is stupid. But we sort of get used to 
that.
  A separate bill on the floor today, H.R. 2954, would weaken the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a thing hated by this Congress, 
their ability to respond to the problematic trends in the mortgage 
market. So here we go again. The CFPB has already saved over $12 
billion for consumers.
  Another measure that will be considered this week, H.R. 4712--that 
was the one I mentioned a minute ago--tries to shame and scare doctors 
out of providing constitutionally protected abortion services. The bill 
this morning gives doctors and medical professionals up to 5 years in 
prison just for practicing medicine to the best of their ability.
  And all the while, the majority has been ignoring the elephant in the 
room and we march toward another government shutdown, and the American 
people and the world are once again forced to wonder whether the 
greatest superpower on this planet can keep the lights on. Surely, this 
is no way to run the Government of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend refers to the drama of the moment. 
Frankly, there wouldn't be any drama if Democrats would simply vote to 
keep the government open while good faith negotiations are going on on 
the very topics they are most concerned about.
  They are concerned about the immigration issue; there is a 
negotiation under way. They are concerned about the appropriate balance 
between military and nonmilitary spending in the budget; there is a 
negotiation that is under way.
  Now, I suspect this effort to threaten a government shutdown in order 
to achieve policy aims that are unrelated to the funding and operation 
of the government will not succeed in this House. Here, we have a 
simple majority. But to my friend's point, and to be fair, that is not 
the case in the United States Senate. There, Democratic votes will be 
needed to keep the government open.

  Now, this House's responsibility is to do everything we can to keep 
the government functioning. In addition to that, there are important 
policy objectives in here that my friends, I think, either agree with 
or have even been demanding.
  The reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program is 
something both sides agree on. Actually, the 6-year extension is a year 
beyond what the Democrats asked for when the legislation was originally 
considered last fall. That is something I know they agree with, and I 
would hope they would vote for it.
  A couple of the unattractive parts of the Affordable Care Act, which 
even

[[Page H506]]

my opponents who supported it en masse agree with:
  It is not very smart to tax the health insurance plans of American 
workers. We have got a delay of that for 2 years.
  They also agree it is not wise to tax medical devices. Again, we have 
a measure in here that would delay that for 2 years.
  They also, I know, believe that we ought to protect the American 
people against missile attacks from rogue states. There is a request 
from the Pentagon in here, again, that is fully funded.

                              {time}  1400

  There is absolutely nothing in this bill that my friends on the other 
side object to. There are many things that they support. Now, they are 
perfectly free to say, well, I would like this, and this, and this, and 
this added. But there is nothing in here to vote against.
  If you want to raise the other issues, I suspect we can work out an 
agreement. And I suspect those issues are being negotiated, literally, 
right now in budget discussions and budget talks. So that is the 
appropriate place to deal with them. But, again, there is no reason to 
shut down the government or threaten a shutdown unless you are trying 
to force some unrelated policy objective.
  In this case, the immigration issue that my friend refers to, 
actually things extend into March. There are talks underway there. I 
don't see how shutting down the government moves us toward that 
solution.
  The same thing is true with the other functions of government. So I 
would say we have a very reasonable prospect or proposal on the table 
here. I suspect that we will achieve the majority in this Chamber. Then 
we will go to the United States Senate, and we will see whether 
Democrats there really do want to shut down the government, as opposed 
to pass a number of items that they agree with: keep the government 
running and keep negotiations going.
  That is the responsible thing to do. That is what I think this House 
will do. That is what I hope Members on both sides of the aisle choose 
to do, both when they vote here and later when they take this matter up 
for consideration in the United States Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  For months, the majority has been holding the healthcare of 9 million 
children and more than 9 million individuals, including seniors, 
pregnant women, and veterans, hostage while they pass the tax breaks 
for millionaires and billionaires.
  Well, the time is up, and with each day we fail to act, our 
constituents face uncertain futures. This is wrong. Mr. Speaker, even 
President Trump agrees we need to act on CHIP. Just this morning, he 
tweeted: ``CHIP should be part of a long-term solution, not a 30-day or 
a short-term extension.''
  Well, here is our chance to stop playing politics, except we can't do 
it until 7 o'clock this evening because the President and so many 
Members of the House are in Pennsylvania at a political rally. I guess 
this wasn't as important as we thought it was.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up Representative McEachin's bill, H.R. 4820, the 
Advancing Seniors and Kids Act. This bill would restore certainty and 
stability to so many of our most vulnerable citizens by responsibly 
addressing critical healthcare priorities.
  It permanently reauthorizes CHIP, saving us $6 billion. It 
reauthorizes the community health centers for 2 years and includes 
other vital healthcare programs that provide relief to pregnant women, 
seniors, and so many more.
  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 (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the assistant minority leader, to discuss 
our proposal.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White 
House. The responsibility to govern rests squarely on their shoulders. 
Democrats stand ready to keep government open, but neither Speaker Ryan 
nor Leader McConnell seem interested in finding bipartisan solutions. 
Maybe they are adhering to President Trump's admonition that we need a 
``good government shutdown.''
  House Democrats wholeheartedly disagree. We ought to work together in 
a bipartisan way to help our veterans, to fight the opioid epidemic, to 
protect millions of workers' pensions, and to help the DREAMers. 
Today's CR is the fourth kick of the can. Once again, Republicans are 
engaging in legislative sleight of hand, shamefully using low-income 
children as political pawns. The Children's Health Insurance Program 
provides health insurance for 9 million low-income children. Every 
Democratic Member of this body supports it.
  Republicans allowed it to expire more than 4 months ago and have 
refused to bring it up on its own until they can get something in 
return. That is wrong. What good is health insurance if you have 
nowhere to go when your child is sick? Republicans leave community 
health centers and disproportionate share hospitals out of their 
temporary authorization.
  Mr. Speaker, we could save $6 billion if we permanently authorize 
CHIP. We should fund community health centers and protect 
disproportionate share hospitals for 2 years. We should permanently 
repeal the cap on therapy services for seniors in Medicare. We should 
fund the highly successful home visiting program for 5 years.
  And we could do all of this by passing Representative Donald 
McEachin's Advancing Seniors and Kids Act. I urge my Republican 
colleagues to stop playing games with the children's health. Reject 
this grotesque political calculation, and let's work in a bipartisan 
way to keep government open.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be crystal clear on something. The House of 
Representatives never held up CHIP. It actually passed it in October. 
We are still waiting for Democrats in the Senate to work with 
Republicans in the Senate and send us something back. In the meantime, 
in this bill, my friend said they want to reauthorize CHIP. We 
reauthorized it for 6 years. There is nothing in it they object to. 
They believe in the program. I believe in the program. It has had 
bipartisan support.

  When we passed it, it got almost every Republican vote, a couple of 
dozen Democratic votes. We actually made the bill better in the 
process, so if you want to fix CHIP, you just simply need to vote for 
this bill.
  And my friends, frankly, we wouldn't be racing Members back here, or 
the President of the United States, if my friends weren't threatening 
to block vote against funding the government while negotiations are 
underway. What advantage do you have in shutting down the government of 
the United States, which is precisely what my friends are threatening 
to do? I think they will not succeed here but actually have the ability 
to do it in the United States Senate, should they choose to do it under 
the rules of that body.
  While negotiations are going on, if you think shutting down the 
government is a good idea, I beg to differ. If you are using it as a 
negotiating tactic, then you ought to be ashamed, because that is no 
way to treat the American people.
  We are operating in good faith. There is not an item in this bill 
that offends any Democrat. Nobody I know is against CHIP. We just heard 
that. Nobody I know is against delaying the Cadillac tax or the medical 
device tax in ObamaCare--two parts of that bill that even my friends 
who supported it tend to disagree with. I know my friends are not 
opposed to providing ballistic missile defense for the United States of 
America. I know my friends surely don't want to handicap the American 
military at a dangerous time by a government shutdown. There is nothing 
in here that could possibly be offensive to them.

[[Page H507]]

  And there are negotiations underway on the very items they are most 
concerned about: immigration and the appropriate balance in funding 
level. Shutting down the government while those negotiations are 
underway isn't going to help us get DACA reform, isn't going to help us 
actually get a budget that we can operate on. It will actually just 
simply switch attention away from those and create a crisis, which I 
assume my friends think will work, somehow, to their political benefit.
  I don't think that is true, and I speak from some experience here. I 
argued against it, but I watched my own side do something like this 
when it came to defunding ObamaCare. It was not successful. It was not 
the appropriate way to proceed, and there was a pretty harsh verdict by 
the American people.
  I suggest my friends are running the same risk today. Now, they have 
every right to do this. I never question any Member's right to vote how 
they think is appropriate, but, in this case, in this body, I think we 
have the votes to make sure that they don't shut down the government as 
they have threatened to do.
  In the United States Senate, that is going to be up to them. Frankly, 
if Democratic Senators want to shut down the government to achieve some 
policy objective, that is their choice. But I think it will be crystal 
clear at the end of the day who actually closed down the government for 
some unrelated policy aim that was actually under negotiation at the 
time.
  So I would, again, just urge my friends to benefit from our 
experience and sit down and keep negotiating while we keep the 
government open. I think if we do that, we will arrive at a 
constructive solution for the American people. I think if we don't, it 
is going to be a political crisis that was unprovoked and unnecessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Oklahoma--and he is 
a good friend. We have seen each other often in the Rules Committee--
protests too much. This is not a bill, and the American people should 
know that it is not a bill. It is an affirmation of the inability of 
Republicans to govern.
  Republicans have the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. A few 
months ago, their President indicated that we need a good, beautiful 
government shutdown. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the 
President of the United States. This is not an appropriations bill. 
This is a stopgap emergency method in order to save ourselves from 
collapse. That is the Republican's responsibility.
  Democrats, so many months ago, passed a budget, as a member of the 
Budget Committee, a budget that respected the needs of all Americans, 
including the United States Department of Defense. It provided funding 
for ordinary men and women who put on the uniform, some of them on food 
stamps. It provided for veterans health. It provided for the children's 
health insurance. It provided for infrastructure, and it provided for 
ensuring that Americans could have good healthcare. That was the 
Democrat's budget.
  The Republican budget was a $2.4 trillion, and counting, cut to the 
needs of the American people. It threatened Medicaid and Medicare, 
quite contrary to Democrats. Now, we find ourselves in the midst of 
those in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands who barely got lights or 
power during the holiday season or thereafter. It is dealing with 
Texans who have no power in their homes, living in shells. They have no 
heat. They are waiting on disaster supplemental relief that is not 
coming.
  And, of course, what about CHIP? I represent the Texas Children's 
Hospital with my colleagues. My district surrounds that area. I have 
been to that hospital. I have seen what the Children's Health Insurance 
Program means to saving lives. What does that mean? Six years, that is 
nebulous. What about permanent?
  What about passing Mr. McEachin's bill on working with seniors and 
children? That is serious. And I don't know what my friends heard, but 
earlier this morning, I heard the President say: Snatch CHIP out of it. 
They want to be in negotiation. I just want to be mean.
  And you know how you are being mean? You are not here seriously 
dealing with this. You are going off on a rally so that you can support 
the man that is running in the Pennsylvania suburbs who loves the 
President. That is not democracy. Whoever is running, let them run.
  Right now, in here, we need some help and we need to work on these 
issues for the 700,000 near-Americans. They are DREAMers, but they 
serve in the military. They are in medical school. They are Ph.D.s. 
They are teachers, and we have them suffering. Some of them have 
committed suicide because of the ugliness of this body controlled by 
Republicans in the House and the Senate.
  Finally, let me say that any President who can call something an s---
hole is not a serious negotiator.
  I believe it is the Republicans' responsibility to put a bill on the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Rule, which makes in order 
legislation extending the Continuing Resolution now in effect for 
another month, or until February 16, 2018.
  This resolution is yet another short-term Continuing Resolution (CR) 
to extend government funding for a few weeks, this time until February 
16th.
  This is the fourth time House Republicans have chosen to kick the can 
down the road rather than work with Democrats to come to a necessary 
bipartisan agreement to lift the Budget Control Act (BCA) spending 
caps, giving appropriators the direction they need for full-year 
funding bills.
  The reason given for passing each of the prior Continuing Resolutions 
was that the extra time was needed to reach a comprehensive agreement 
to fund government operations in a fair and balanced way.
  Yet, even with the extra time, House Republicans made no progress 
during any of the previous extensions.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a rule that does not make in order 
legislation that provides full funding for disaster recovery, extends 
additional health access for veterans, provides funding to combat the 
opioid epidemic, and protects pensions.
  Most important, it is outrageous that House Republicans would bring 
to the floor and request support for a fourth CR extension that does 
not address and resolve the crisis the Republican Administration has 
inflicted on 800,0oo Dreamers and their families, including 124,000 
Dreamers in my home state of Texas.
  Instead of acting responsibly to address these issues and fund the 
government for the remainder of the fiscal year, House Republicans 
continue wasting time.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us includes a six year 
reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), 
which provides health coverage to nine million children, and which 
Republicans allowed to lapse on September 30, 2017.
  In contrast, making CHIP permanent would not only provide long-term 
stability for families, providers, and states, it would save $6 billion 
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  Republicans are only just now getting around to reauthorizing the 
program because they wasted months on efforts to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act and enact unpaid for tax cuts for the wealthy.
  This resolution includes additional tax cuts totaling over $26 
billion, including a two year delay of the medical device and Cadillac 
taxes, and a one year delay of the health insurance tax.
  At the same time, the resolution fails to address numerous other 
expired and expiring health priorities, from funding for community 
health centers to waiving caps on therapy services for seniors on 
Medicare, to preventing cuts to safety net hospitals.
  Mr. Speaker, despite controlling the House, Senate, and the White 
House, Republicans have not funded the government for the entire year, 
even though we are already four months into the fiscal year.
  Because Republicans refuse to work with Democrats and compromise on 
how to provide relief from the BCA's sequester level spending caps, 
they are lurching from CR to CR--degrading the readiness of our 
military and preventing government agencies from properly serving the 
American people.
  This is not a responsible way to govern.
  Therefore, I cannot support the Rule or the underlying bill.
  Instead, Republicans need to work across the aisle with Democrats and 
get our work done--including upholding the long-standing precedent of 
agreeing to parity when providing relief from sequester caps.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas has 
expired. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized. The gentlewoman 
from Texas is not recognized.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. * * *
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oklahoma.

[[Page H508]]

  

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Just to be clear with my good friend from Texas, Democrats didn't 
pass a budget. They proposed a budget. That is fair enough, but they 
never passed a budget in this House. There was a budget that was passed 
by the Republican majority. It is interesting, that budget actually 
came into balance within 10 years. Our friends on the other side never 
presented a budget that came into balance from any of their various 
groups.
  Frankly, the last administration never presented a budget that ever 
came into balance. So it is hard to talk about a budget that never 
comes into balance as if it is a responsible document. It is clearly 
not.
  In terms of my friend's concern about CHIP, it is an appropriate 
concern. The answer is right in front of her. Simply vote for this 
bill. You got a 6-year authorization that was longer than my friends 
originally asked for in the negotiations that were last fall.

                              {time}  1415

  This House has actually, again, met all of its obligations. My 
friends' counterparts in the other body, frankly, have used their votes 
under the rules of that body to sabotage any appropriations process 
whatsoever. It requires 60 votes in the United States Senate. 
Unfortunately, we only have 51. So if Democrats won't sit down and 
negotiate, nothing much gets done over there. That is why we are here 
today. Frankly, we are here to make sure the government doesn't shut 
down.
  Now, again, my friends have every right to vote to shut down the 
government. If they vote ``no'' on this measure, that is exactly what 
they are doing. They are voting to shut down the government. They are 
voting not to reauthorize CHIP. They are voting to tax the American 
people by putting taxes on their healthcare plans and putting taxes on 
medical devices. They are missing the opportunity to help us with 
missile defense in a very dangerous era. And they are throwing away the 
time while negotiations on the topics they are concerned about are 
underway--negotiations on the budget and negotiations on DACA.
  So why my friends want to do this at this particular point is beyond 
me. But I would suggest it is not likely to work. It is likely to 
backfire. If we end up in a government shutdown--something I would very 
much advise against--I think my friends, all of whom will have voted to 
shut down the government, will bear the responsibility. I think the 
American people will understand.
  Now, again, I don't think my friends will succeed in this House, but 
they may well in the upper Chamber because, up there, they do have the 
votes under the rules of that body to shut down the government. I would 
urge them not to do that and to keep the government operational, to 
take these victories--and they are victories where we agree--and keep 
negotiating on the issues that most concern us. I think that is the 
appropriate way to proceed, and I would urge my friends to adopt that 
course.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
and, once again, for her tremendous leadership on so many issues as our 
ranking member.
  Now, I serve as a member of the Appropriations and the Budget 
Committees, and I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the 
continuing resolution.
  I just want to make one comment before I start my statement with 
regard to what was just said about Democrats shutting down the 
government.
  First of all, there is no way that Democrats are voting to shut down 
the government, given the fact that the Republicans control the House, 
the Senate, and the White House. The numbers just aren't there for 
Democrats to do this. So I hope that people on the other side--
Republicans and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--will be 
honest about that because there is no way, given the numbers and given 
the composition of the House, the Senate, and the White House, that 
Democrats can do that.
  This bill kicks the can down the road for the fourth time, mind you, 
since October.
  Republicans control, again, as I said, the three bodies: the House, 
the Senate, White House. The least they could do is honor the basic 
responsibility of being in the majority, and that is to keep the 
government open.
  Sadly, they continue to drive this country to the brink of one 
avoidable, self-inflicted crisis after another.
  This short-term resolution ignores--ignores--urgent bipartisan 
priorities that Democrats have been pushing for months with 
Republicans, the most urgent of which is passing a clean Dream Act. 
DACA recipients are American in every way except on paper, and right 
now, their lives are hanging in the balance. Every day Congress fails 
to take action, 122 DACA recipients lose their protections. It is time 
to put politics aside and pass a clean Dream Act immediately.
  Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution is really irresponsible and 
it is morally bankrupt. It fails to honor the temporary protected 
status for immigrants. It fails to raise budget caps equally for 
defense and nondefense spending. It fails to fund community health 
centers. It neglects to provide desperately needed funding for 
hurricane- and wildfire-impacted communities, the opioid epidemic, 
community health centers, and our veterans.
  This bill underscores the majority's complete lack of regard for 
everyday Americans and struggling families.
  Continuing resolutions leave the American people out on a limb with 
no confidence, mind you, in their Federal Government. This resolution 
makes it clear that is just what Republicans want to do. The American 
people sent us to Congress to govern in their best interest. 
Unfortunately, this CR is just the opposite. It is completely 
irresponsible.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, this CR does nothing--nothing--to help create 
jobs, better wages, and ultimately a better future for our children and 
our families.
  It is really clear to me that the delay on this bill is because some 
House Republicans are in Pennsylvania. I was shocked when I learned 
this. They are in Pennsylvania with the President at a political rally.
  What is that about?
  They should be here in Washington, D.C., to do their job. Shame on 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and the bill.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a press release from--my friends 
may have missed this--the Children's Hospital Association.

                     [Press Release, Jan. 18, 2018]

    Children's Hospitals to Congress: Kids Can't Wait, Fund CHIP Now

       Washington, DC.-- The Children's Health Insurance Program 
     (CHIP) is vital to millions of children and families. These 
     families have been living with uncertainty since funding for 
     CHIP expired at the end of September. States are exhausting 
     all available program funds and have announced plans to 
     freeze enrollment and, in some cases, end their programs 
     altogether. Kids can't wait any longer.
       Congress has a chance to pass a long-term extension of CHIP 
     that will provide security for millions of kids. The 
     continuing resolution being considered by Congress includes a 
     six-year extension of CHIP. Children's hospitals support a 
     long-term extension of CHIP and urge Congress to take this 
     opportunity to pass CHIP this week. The time is now to extend 
     funding for this lifeline millions of children and their 
     families count on every day.
       About the Children's Hospital Association--the Children's 
     Hospital Association is the national voice of more than 220 
     children's hospitals, advancing child health through 
     innovation in the quality, cost and delivery of care.

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, the Children's Hospital Association has 
actually urged that this bill be adopted. They have urged that we, for 
6 years, ensure the funding. They would like my friends--who I know 
believe in the program--to actually vote for the measure in front of 
them.
  Now, we have heard a number of things about kicking the can down the 
road. I confess, keeping the government open while negotiations are in 
progress is something we are trying to do.

[[Page H509]]

  But I also point out this is not simply a normal CR. It settles the 
Children's Health Insurance Program for the next 6 years and 
appropriately funds it. It delays tax increases, which my friends also 
oppose, although they voted for them in ObamaCare on people's health 
insurance programs and on medical devices. It provides badly needed 
dollars for missile defense in an era of crisis with an irresponsible 
state.
  It doesn't have anything in it that offends my friends in any way. 
There is nothing in this bill they are against. If they are, I would 
like to know.
  Is it CHIP that my friends are against? Is it delaying the Cadillac 
tax that my friends are against? Is it, frankly, delaying the medical 
device tax increase that my friends are against? Is it putting more 
money in ballistic missile defense that my friends are against? Or is 
it just continuing the government's operations that my friends are 
against while negotiations are underway?
  I am not sure which one my friends are for, but it suggests to me if 
there is nothing in here they are against, then they ought to be voting 
for the bill.
  Finally, to my friend's point--and there is more to this than their 
comments would suggest--to suggest that we simply can control the 
universe around here isn't true. We don't write the Senate rules. I 
wish we did. They would probably look a lot different and we probably 
would have less of a problem. But my friends have not been able to shut 
down the government here, although they tried to in December. I don't 
think they will be able to shut down the government, although they will 
try to again today.
  But in the United States Senate, the Democrats will decide whether or 
not the government continues to operate; whether or not CHIP is 
reauthorized for 6 years, as the Children's Hospital Association urges; 
whether or not millions of American families are spared from a tax 
increase simply because they fought and worked for a decent insurance 
plan; whether or not millions of Americans who depend on medical 
devices for their survival have to pay more for them; and whether or 
not we have a higher level of certainty that we can defend ourselves 
against an unprovoked and dangerous attack that might occur at any 
moment.
  That will be a decision for Democrats in the Senate to make as long 
as we vote here to move this legislation forward. I think we will, and 
I would invite my friends to join us in that.
  There is nothing in here that offends my friends. There are many 
things that my friends like, and there are negotiations underway on the 
things that are my friends' concerns.
  I would suspect that is the course that we ought to take, and I would 
urge my friends to reconsider and adopt that course.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he is 
prepared to close? I have no further speakers.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to close whenever my 
good friend is.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend, Mr. Cole, seems almost to be desperate 
to have us vote for this continuing resolution, which says to me that 
the majority doesn't have enough votes to pass it. Somehow by saying 
that because the Democrats will not support this farce, then we are 
going to be responsible for it. But, frankly, my good friends are three 
for three on government shutdowns just since I have been a Member of 
Congress. Nobody is going to believe that, with all the excess numbers 
of votes here--I think you have 23 more Members have than we have got--
we are at fault.
  But, anyway, let's get to the business here.
  Instead of treating this like the serious issue that it is, the 
President is treating it like another reality show. He has suggested 
that Democrats would certainly be blamed for the majority's inability 
to keep the government running. But he is wrong about that, too. Just 
this week, a poll from Hart Research Associates found that the public 
would blame the majority by a double-digit margin. That gap grows wider 
when you look specifically at independent Americans.
  History shows this to be true. When the majority shut down the 
government over the Affordable Care Act in 2013, a majority of the 
public placed the blame on them, not President Obama. We saw similar 
results when former Speaker Gingrich engineered shutdowns in both 1995 
and 1996 because he thought the seat given to him on Air Force One did 
not fit his stature. The American people then blamed the Republican 
congressional majority, not President Bill Clinton. That is because 
facts matter, and the fact here is that the majority chose a partisan 
approach that threatens our ability to keep the government functioning.
  But this discussion should not be centered on blame. It is about 
whether the Republican majority can even govern. Holding the White 
House, the Senate, and the House comes with great responsibilities, 
and, obviously, the most basic one--and we all understand this--to 
start with is keeping the Government of the United States running.
  Yet we are confronted all the time with this problem: Are we going to 
be able to pay the bills and keep things going?
  That is so humiliating for America. There is no other word for it.
  But this majority, as pointed out before, just lurches from crisis to 
crisis to crisis, and they lurch around from one deadline to the next 
without any plan. All the time, all you need to do is ask to let us 
work together, let Democrats in on your backroom plans. We never get to 
see that. We are never consulted and never a part of any plan.

  Let me remind everyone watching that the last Republican shutdown in 
2013 cost the economy an estimated $24 billion. Federal loans to small 
businesses, homeowners, and families were halted, and numbers of great 
Federal employees were furloughed. Federal permitting was stopped. 
Hundreds of patients at the National Institutes of Health were unable 
to enroll in possible lifesaving clinical trials. Federal scientific 
research was also put on hold. We had five Nobel Prize-winning 
scientists working for the Federal Government at that time, and four of 
them were furloughed.
  The majority apparently thinks it has the votes to go it alone on 
this bill, but I don't think so anymore. We thought so when I wrote 
this. But they think we are going to prevent a repeat of all that 
carnage. It is a shame that they squandered a chance to work with us to 
craft a bipartisan bill. Frankly, I think it is tragedy, and I think it 
is no way to run the government.
  Without question, we could have kept the government running while 
addressing the priorities that Members of both parties agree on, like 
we used to.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, 
and the bill. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to, as always, thank my good friend. We disagree 
on this, but there is nobody that I enjoy serving with on the Rules 
Committee more than my good friend, the ranking member. She is a wise 
and able legislator.
  There are a couple of things she said I am going to agree with. She 
did say that facts matter. I actually agree with that. Facts do matter 
here, and the fact of the matter is anyone who votes ``no'' on this 
resolution is voting to shut down the government. Anyone--Republican or 
Democrat--who votes ``no'' has said: I am not willing to keep the 
government open while negotiations are underway.
  Anyone who votes ``no'' is voting against a 6-year extension of the 
Children's Health Insurance Program that we all agree on to say is 
critical. Anyone who votes ``no'' is absolutely guaranteed a tax 
increase or will be voting for a tax increase on American workers who 
happen to have a fairly decent insurance program. Anybody who votes 
``no'' is going to raise taxes on Americans who are ill enough to 
require medical devices.
  Anyone who votes ``no'' is going to make sure we don't have the 
resources we need to protect this country in a time of international 
crisis against a potential rogue missile attack.

                              {time}  1430

  Anyone who votes ``no,'' to begin where I started, is voting to shut 
down

[[Page H510]]

the government. It is that simple. My friends did that in December 
because they thought, ``Well, they can't do it without us,'' but we 
did. I suspect we will be able to do that again. But I regret that 
anyone would vote ``no'' on those kinds of votes because I think they 
will come back to haunt them.
  My friend also--and I think this may actually be the key to the 
issue--quoted polling data that said the Republicans are going to get 
the blame anyway. That may be true. I don't doubt the accuracy of my 
friend's numbers, but I suspect that, once they watch the process, the 
American people are pretty smart and they will understand a ``no'' vote 
is a vote to shut down the government.
  Now, if my friends are gambling that Republicans will get the blame 
for this because they have done this in the past, I think they are 
running a terrible risk with their own credibility.
  In this body, we will succeed. I don't serve in the United States 
Senate, never served in the United States Senate, never worked for 
anybody who served in the Senate. They have rules that will allow the 
Democrats to shut down the government if they choose to do it. I don't 
think they will. But if they do, I think they will regret it. 
Certainly, many on my side regret some of the decisions they made in 
the last crisis of this kind.
  I hope we do the responsible thing in this body and count on cooler 
heads in the United States Senate to do the same thing.
  I also would point out that in this bill that my friends are going to 
vote ``no'' on--probably in overwhelming numbers, I am sad to say--
there is nothing in it they disagree with. They don't disagree with the 
CHIP reauthorization. They don't disagree with delaying taxes in the 
Affordable Care Act. They don't disagree with providing additional 
missile defense.
  They tell us they want to keep the government operating, particularly 
when there are negotiations underway on the matters that actually 
concern them. That strikes me as incredibly disingenuous, shortsighted, 
or both.
  So I urge my friends: Do what you must on the rule. The rule is the 
rule. That is always a partisan exercise, and I always respect my 
friends for voting ``no'' on a rule. But the underlying legislation is 
real: whether or not the government operates; whether or not we take 
care of these knotty problems where we happen to agree; whether or not 
we actually put the well-being of the country, in terms of its defense, 
above the media partisan interests. Those things are all areas that 
shouldn't be tough votes.
  So I would hope my friends reconsider, come down and vote to keep the 
government running instead of shutting it down, come down and vote to 
keep taxes from being imposed on hardworking families through their 
health insurance plan or medical devices, come down and vote to make 
sure we have the strongest possible defense against any possible attack 
on our country, and come down and vote to keep the government open 
while negotiations are underway. I think the failure to do that is one 
that my friends will look back on with deep regret in the years ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I encourage all Members to support the rule. 
Today's bill represents the next step toward fulfilling our primary 
obligation as Members of Congress: to fund the government. Although not 
perfect, the bill before us today will fund our government and keep it 
open and operating through February 16, 2018.
  We will also reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program for 
6 years and achieve a delay in several harmful Obama taxes. While doing 
so, we bolster the defense of our country at a dangerous time.
  While I look forward to completing our work and passing a bipartisan, 
bicameral full-year omnibus spending bill, for now, this legislation 
will keep the government open and operating and give us time to 
continue working toward a bipartisan agreement for the American people.
  I applaud my colleagues for their work.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows

          An Amendment to H. Res. 696 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. 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. 
     4820) to extend funding for certain public health programs, 
     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 among 
     and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority 
     members of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4820.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page H511]]

  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:
  Adoption of the resolution, if ordered;
  Ordering the previous question on House Resolution 694; and
  Adoption of House Resolution 694, if ordered.
  

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 191, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 27]

                               YEAS--229

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     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
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thornberry
     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--191

     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
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Barletta
     Cummings
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     Meehan
     Noem
     Rothfus
     Scalise
     Shuster
     Thompson (PA)

                              {time}  1458

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GROTHMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 194, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 28]

                               YEAS--226

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     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
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thornberry
     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--194

     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

[[Page H512]]


     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     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
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Barletta
     Cummings
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     Meehan
     Noem
     Rothfus
     Scalise
     Shuster
     Thompson (PA)

                              {time}  1506

  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.

                          ____________________