[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.
____________________