[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 13 (Saturday, January 20, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H589-H602]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON
RULES, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 708 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows
H. Res. 708
Resolved, That 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 29, 2018.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time through the
calendar day of January 28, 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 Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and
the underlying legislation.
This resolution, which we will present today, is necessary. It is
necessary to provide the House with the flexibility necessary to
address Senate Democrat's inaction while they continue to impede
funding the United States Government and the important instruments of
government.
Mr. Speaker, last evening, Senator Chuck Schumer from New York and
Senate Democrats made what I consider to be a reprehensible decision to
allow the United States Government to shut down. By voting against the
bill that funds our military and the pay of men and women in uniform,
they voted against a bill that would extend children's healthcare for 6
years, not because they opposed anything in the bill, because you would
really be hard pressed to be opposed to anything that was in this
legislation. They voted against the bill to manufacture a crisis in a
purely political move based upon an unrelated issue that is not facing
an imminent deadline.
I would like to thank the five Senate Democrats and six House
Democrats who voted with Republicans to keep the government open.
Senator Schumer should have headed the rest of his Democrats and
encouraged them to do what he did even back in 2013, when he said:
We--and I say ``the Democrats''--could say we are shutting down the
government. We are not. We are going to raise the deficit ceiling until
you pass immigration reform. It just would be government chaos not to
do the right thing and open up the government.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, these wise words heeded more than ever now; this is
just a political game. As President Trump
[[Page H590]]
said last evening, Senate Democrats own this. It is a Schumer shutdown.
They put politics above national security.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will suspend.
The gentleman from Colorado will state his point of order.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. The gentleman is referring to Members of the Senate,
which I believe is out of decorum and out of order by name.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Colorado demanding
that the gentleman from Texas' words be taken down?
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Yes, sir.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas will be seated.
The Clerk will report the words.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I
withdraw my request that the gentleman from Texas' words be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman clarify that his request
is that the demand for the words of the gentleman from Texas to be
taken down be withdrawn?
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The demand is withdrawn.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I think Republicans are on the floor of
the House today to show what we are attempting to offer to the American
people. Mr. Speaker, things are sensitive here on both sides. The
government shut down.
Republicans are going to offer, today, advice to the American people
about where we stand about getting this back to where we not only open
up the government, but doing it in a way that is favorable, not only to
the American people, but favorable to the people who protect this great
country, including those children of this country who need healthcare,
which Republicans had attempted to pass in the House and the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, today is the 1-year anniversary of a complete Republican
control of Washington. The majority runs the White House, the Senate,
and the House of Representatives. And what do we have to show for it?
First, a tax bill for corporations and the wealthy. Now, the great
Government of the United States is closed for business.
The impacts will be severe. Just look what happened during the last
Republican shutdown in 2013, which cost our economy an estimated $24
billion:
We lost progress on reducing the massive backlog of veterans'
disability claims;
Two-thirds of the Centers for Disease Control and three-fourths of
the National Institutes of Health were furloughed;
Flu season surveillance and monitoring was severely limited, and we
are in a crisis, this year, with the flu where more than 20 children
have died;
Lifesaving FDA food safety inspections were delayed;
1.2 million private sector loans to individuals and small businesses
were disrupted;
Billions in tax refunds were delayed;
Head Start centers serving 6,300 children were closed; and
120,000 private sector jobs were destroyed.
Why is the government shut down today?
Because the majority was so obsessed with handing out tax breaks to
the wealthy and corporations that they ignored their responsibility to
the American people. They failed to renew, before they expired,
community health centers.
They failed to permanently renew the Children's Health Insurance
Program, which the CBO--Congressional Budget Office--had found would
save the government over $6 billion over 10 years.
That is despite the fact that the majority made their tax cuts for
corporations permanent.
That was a tax bill, by the way, that was sold as a middle class tax
cut. But we know today that it was anything but. It is a tax cut for
big corporations and the superwealthy, and it seems designed to target
blue States. I live in one.
Action on these items shouldn't be some extraordinary exercise.
Republicans and Democrats agree that we need to address them. But the
majority has been missing in action.
All the while, we have been forced to limp along, funding the
government in month-long tranches. That is no way to run a business,
and it is certainly no way to run the Government of the United States
of America.
President Trump tweeted last May: ``Our country needs a good
`shutdown.'''
In 2011, years before he assumed office, President Trump said, during
an interview, as another Republican shutdown loomed: ``If there is a
shutdown, I think it would be a tremendously negative mark on the
President of the United States. He's the one that has to get people
together.'' We would like to have him do that and play that role now.
The President should not treat this like a reality show, and the
majority should stop treating government like a game where the truth is
so easily discarded.
The majority's short-term CR failed last night in the other body
because it didn't get the job done. It was written behind closed doors
without a single bit of input from the minority party.
Democrats weren't alone in making clear that this continuing
resolution was unacceptable.
Members of the majority's own conference voted against it on both
sides of the Capitol.
If I were in the majority's shoes with 51 seats in the other body,
and I had to get to 60 votes, I would want Democrats to be in on it
with me. To do that, we need to be in on it at all steps, not just at
the time of the vote.
The majority is quick to invoke the name of my State Senator--that I
think will not cross my lips because of what we just went through--but
let me say that that Senator from the State of New York earned perfect
scores on his SATs, was heard one Saturday morning on NPR on two
different subjects, and I don't believe anyone could honestly say that
he ever misunderstood what the President said during a meeting, or that
he would leave a meeting in any way confounded or confused.
They were apparently close to a deal to avert a shutdown.
The problem is that this President apparently thinks one thing at 10
a.m. and another one at noon--somewhat like Alice in Wonderland--and
that makes reaching an agreement extraordinarily difficult.
Even the Senate majority leader from my other home State of Kentucky,
Senator Mitch McConnell, said this week: ``I'm looking for something
that President Trump supports. And he's not yet indicated what measure
he's willing to sign.''
So the majority in both Chambers should try something new for a
change: we call it bipartisanship.
I am here today ready to craft a compromise that addresses the needs
facing the American people. So are my Democratic colleagues.
To the majority, I say this with all of my heart: Work with us for
the good of this country, and let us end this shutdown before Monday.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Thornberry), the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, which will help give the
House the flexibility it needs to respond appropriately to whatever the
Senate may be able to pass.
I think it is important to remind everyone that the House has done
its work. We passed every one of the appropriations bills before the
fiscal year began in October. And, on Thursday, we passed a bill to
continue government funding until February 16. Now we are waiting to
see what the Senate may be able to pass, and this rule enables us to
respond to that.
But I want to focus my comments on the effects that this budget drama
is having on the United States military.
Mr. Speaker, the first job of the Federal Government is to defend the
country. We have to do that before we do
[[Page H591]]
anything else. There are more than 2 million men and women who have
volunteered to risk their lives to help keep us safe. Some of them are
stationed, this very minute, all around the world. Every single one of
them and their families depend upon us for the support they need to do
the job that the country has asked them to do.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is very explicit,
saying it is Congress' responsibility to raise and support, provide and
maintain, the military forces of this Nation.
But at this moment, those men and women, wherever they are around the
world, doing their job, are not getting paid. They will still do their
job, but now they have an additional concern to worry them.
There are other consequences.
All of the civilians who work at the Department of Defense are also
not getting paid. On Monday, about half of them will be told not to
come to work. The work on weapons maintenance activities, largely, will
be stopped. New contracts for support and other activities will not be
allowed to proceed. Many medical procedures at military treatment
facilities will not take place. And the Pentagon will not be able to
pay any of its bills, whether that is money that is owed to a family
who has lost a loved one in the line of duty, or whether it is paying a
doctor to take care of a servicemember.
{time} 1630
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely true that every day that we force the
military to live under a continuing resolution, it does damage to the
military. The damage that is being done now under this shutdown is far
worse.
Truthfully, we have not fulfilled our responsibility to the troops or
to the Constitution for some time. As the world grew more dangerous
over the last 8 years, we cut the military budget about 20 percent. No
other portion of the Federal budget--no other significant portion, at
least, of the Federal budget has undergone those kinds of cuts, and now
we do this.
Mr. Speaker, there is an even more disturbing problem here. Too many
people want to use our constitutional duty to the troops as leverage
for some other issue.
Mostly everyone on both sides of the Capitol agree that we need to
spend more on defense, and that is reflected in the votes we have had
on defense issues over the past year, but some have now made actually
spending that money that the troops need conditional on getting their
way on some other extraneous, unrelated issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we ought to support the military
funding on its own merits and not tie it to any other issue, and then
we can look at those other issues on their own merits, too.
Using support for our military as a hostage to try to get political
advantage on some other issue--really on any other issue--is wrong and
it ought to stop.
We need to set our troops free from this political drama. The time to
do that is now.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is day one of the Trump shutdown. What a sad day it
is for this institution and what an incredibly sad day this is for our
country.
This Republican-controlled government is incompetent. It takes my
breath away. You control the House, the Senate, and the White House,
and this is what we get, one continuing resolution after another, and
now a Trump shutdown. You should be fired. This is so incredibly wrong.
You say you want Democrats to support your spending bills, yet you
won't work with us, you won't even talk to us. Negotiating bills in
back rooms with only Republicans is not how you get a bipartisan vote.
This my-way-or-the-highway approach undermines our democracy and
results in lousy bills that do not serve the interests of the American
people.
The Republican leadership promised regular order. They promised to
respect the views of everybody, including the views of the minority.
They promised a more open process. That has turned out to be a big, fat
lie.
I hear from my Republican friends that they care about the DREAMers.
We all know that if the Dream Act was brought before this House, it
would pass with a bipartisan vote, but the Republican leadership around
here is so pathetically terrified by the most hateful, xenophobic, and
bigoted elements of their base that they would rather shut down the
government than put a bipartisan bill on the floor.
I would have thought that once the Republican leadership got the one
thing that gets them out of bed in the morning--massive tax cuts for
hedge fund managers and multinational corporations--that they would be
willing to actually govern. I guess not.
We need a permanent fix to CHIP, which has been expired for 112 days
because the Republicans have refused to reauthorize it, but we need to
fund community health centers, medical research, and veterans' health.
We need funds to deal with the opiate crisis. We need to support our
men and women in the armed services. We desperately need to invest in
our aging infrastructure.
What we don't need are more and more short-term CRs that fail to
address so many urgent needs in this country.
My colleagues, today, millions of Americans, led by fed up women, are
marching in cities and towns all across the country and they have a
message. They don't like the way you are governing and they are not
going to take it anymore.
So to my Republican friends, ask yourselves if you want to keep
following Trump and the most extreme elements of your party off a
political cliff, because that is where they are taking you. If you keep
following them, history will not be kind.
So stop the nonsense, stop the obstructionism. Do your job and work
with Democrats for the good of our country. The American people are
watching.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, there was a question about the President. The President
does not vote in the House or the Senate. Those people who voted
``yes'' were for funding the government, those who voted ``no'' were
for shutting down the government.
The President of the United States, through what is called a
Statement of Administration Policy, advised the Rules Committee on
January 17 that he would be signing the bill. The President said he was
for the bill.
Mr. Speaker, the Armed Forces Network is operated by the U.S. Armed
Forces, which broadcasts popular television programs to the United
States Government, civilians, and their families, especially those at
bases and overseas, including ships at sea.
Because of the Schumer shutdown, Armed Forces Network services will
go off the air. That means that tomorrow--the NFL championship Sunday--
our servicemen all around the globe will be unable to participate in
the things that we do here in the United States, yet another example of
why a ``yes'' vote would have been for the men and women of our
military.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the Nation finds itself in a grave situation. Our
government has shut down. Military men and women in Afghanistan, in
Iraq, and around the world are still risking their lives for our
country and are not being paid. Opioid treatment centers have had their
funds cut off. Children in States across America will start losing
their health insurance.
How did we get to this place?
The Nation assumes there must be a good reason. The House passed a
bill--a clean government funding bill with no strings attached and no
gimmicks because States are running out of money. We even included
funding for a bipartisan extension of the Children's Health Insurance
Program for 6 years without any offsets that our Democratic colleagues
have objected to in the past, the longest that CHIP has ever been
reauthorized for.
[[Page H592]]
So we passed that bill and it went to the Senate. We all know the
rules, but, Mr. Speaker, at times it sounds like some people need a
little greater knowledge of how the system works. It is incorrect to
claim otherwise.
Republicans may have majorities in both houses, but it takes 60 votes
in the Senate to move legislation. That means the Senate needs Democrat
votes to keep our government funded, but Senate Democrats said no, just
as more than 90 percent of those on the other side of the aisle in this
House did as well. Senate Democrats shut this government down. This is
a Schumer shutdown.
Once upon a time, Chuck Schumer called shutting the government down a
``politics of idiocy.''
Senator Feinstein even said: ``Shutting down the government is a very
serious thing.''
You know what she said?
She said: ``People die. Accidents happen. You don't know. Necessary
functions can cease.''
So how did they change their minds? Why did they do it?
I would like to know, because nobody knows.
It wasn't the bill. The funding bill is clean.
It wasn't CHIP. The children's health insurance legislation we passed
came straight from the bipartisan deal in the Senate.
They say it is about immigration, about DACA. They are shutting down
the government, cutting off funds for our troops, cutting off funds to
opioid treatment centers, and cutting off health insurance for American
children over immigration, over something that has nothing to do with
this funding bill or with putting the American people first.
So I think that it is only reasonable that we ask: What exactly are
their demands? Why are they holding our government, our troops, and
American children hostage?
Why would you hold it hostage over DACA if the President brought the
House, the Senate, the Republicans, the Democrats together?
I was in that meeting.
Do you know who else was in that meeting?
The American public, because the President allowed the media to be
there.
Do you know what happened at the end of that meeting?
Based upon the President's leadership, he brought us together and we
all decided we would focus just on four ideas--DACA, border security,
chain migration, and the lottery--because we wanted to solve the
problem, but we didn't want to have to come back to it a few years from
now.
We took the President's lead.
Do you know what?
Every day we have been having those meetings.
Do you know how I know?
Because I am in those meetings and they are in my office.
Just a day before we shut down, the quote from those on the other
side of the aisle and even in the Senate was:
This is the most productive meeting we have had.
So why shut it down now? Why even shut down the meetings by shutting
down the government?
If they want something different than a bipartisan deal, if they want
to force one-sided immigration policy through Congress that the
American public doesn't want, then they should have the courage to say
it straight, have the courage to say that they are shutting down our
government to make the illegal immigration situation in this country
worse instead of making the hard choices to fix it.
Mr. Speaker, the American people don't want to see temper tantrums.
They don't want to see anyone stomping their feet demanding they get
their way. That is not just an embarrassment, it has profound
consequences for good people across this country.
Now, this House stands ready to pass another clean spending bill.
And, yes, Mr. Speaker, if this side of the aisle has to do it alone,
like we have done it in the past, we will.
We stand ready to keep our government open and pay our troops with no
strings attached, but we will not negotiate a bad deal for America,
especially not when Senate Democrats are holding our government
hostage.
This is too important. History is watching. History will not be kind
to those who put themselves above the American people.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I am sorry that the majority leader didn't mention it, but were there
any Democrats in those meetings in his office?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Welch), a former member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that we are all
fortunate in this House and in this country to have the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee that we do, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Thornberry).
He identified a problem. When we are operating by continuing
resolutions, no one has any certainty or stability, particularly the
military. This is the fourth continuing resolution in the fourth month
of the budget year.
Give us a budget, a year budget. That is what we need and that is
what the military needs.
Secondly, to the majority leader, my friend, if we are going to have
Democrats involved, they have to be at the table. And there has been a
decision made that to get to 218 votes, it is going to be the Tea Party
that has the final say, not Democratic participation. Let's change
that.
Third, the budget issues are not all that difficult. They have been
mentioned: DACA, to be sure. It is the opioid crisis. It is veterans
funding. It is community health centers.
Then, finally, on DACA, let's have an open rule. Let's bring to the
floor the Goodlatte bill. Many favor it on your side. Let's bring to
the floor the Hurd-Aguilar bill. It is bipartisan. Let's promise to put
on the floor whatever bill may be passed in the Senate. That is called
an open process. It is called taking accountability.
We are in a situation of our own making. None of us want to be here.
We all know it is wrong for the American people and it is bad for the
reputation of the government.
Let us have an open process, an open rule, and we will set America
free.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Fairhope, Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, this is a shame. It is a shame that we find
ourselves in this position all because Senate Democrats think they can
hold the Federal Government hostage until they get their way on
immigration issues. There is no way around it.
{time} 1645
That is exactly what is happening here. A majority in the House and a
majority in the Senate have voted to prevent this shutdown and keep the
government open.
Point of Order
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado will state his
point of order.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, the point of order is that poster that
is being brought is disparaging of a Member of the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair requests that the poster be presented to the Chair for his
observation.
The gentleman from Colorado raises an objection to the use of an
exhibit in debate. Under the rules of the House, the Chair may submit
the question of its use to the House or make a judgment on its use as a
matter of decorum.
The Chair has examined the exhibit and finds that it does not
constitute a breach of decorum.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal the ruling of the
Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 20, 2018 on Page H592 the following appeared: Mr.
PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The question is, Shall the decision of
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. PERLMUTTER.
Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair. The SPEAKER
pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of
========================= END NOTE =========================
Motion to Table
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to lay the
appeal on the table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
[[Page H593]]
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 173, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 40]
AYES--224
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cicilline
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Raskin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
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
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--173
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McEachin
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
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
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Cohen
Lieu, Ted
NOT VOTING--31
Abraham
Barton
Boyle, Brendan F.
Bridenstine
Buck
Carson (IN)
Clay
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeSantis
Gohmert
Granger
Green, Gene
Higgins (NY)
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly (MS)
Massie
Meehan
O'Halleran
Palazzo
Reichert
Roskam
Russell
Scalise
Shuster
Vargas
Yoh
{time} 1711
Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Messrs. RUSH, BROWN of
Maryland, and GOTTHEIMER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CICILLINE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 38 ordering Call of
House, ``pres'' on rollcall No. 39 Call of House, and ``yea'' on
rollcall No. 40 Tableing appeal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) has
1\1/2\ minutes remaining in his remarks.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, where was I before my poster of Senator
Schumer was ruled in order? Oh, yes, government shutdowns have
devastating implications on so many different areas, especially when it
comes to our Nation's military.
All Active-Duty military personnel will come to work, but they cannot
be paid. Critical maintenance operations and training that are not
directly related to ongoing military operations are forced to stop, all
because of the Schumer shutdown.
Mr. Speaker, the government funding bill in question also includes 6
years of funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as
ALL Kids in Alabama, but Minority Leader Pelosi recently said that the
efforts to fund the government and fund CHIP are like a bowl of doggy-
doo. I can assure the minority leader that funding for ALL Kids in
Alabama isn't doggy-doo to the over 150,000 children in my State who
receive insurance through the program.
Mr. Speaker, I have a message to my colleagues in the Senate: Enough
is enough.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the words of the
gentleman be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama will be seated.
The Clerk will report the words.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is a very
difficult time for all of us, but we all need to be a little more human
and a little more patient.
Mr. Speaker, in order to have civility among all of us, I withdraw my
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The demand has been withdrawn by the
gentleman from Georgia.
The gentleman from Alabama, who has 40 seconds remaining, is
recognized.
Mr. BYRNE. Stop with these political stunts that put our military at
risk. Stop with the reckless antics that create uncertainty for
families across the country. Stop playing to the resistance base.
Stop with the games, and let's get our Federal Government back open
for business.
Enough is enough.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage adoption of this rule, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset, we ought to both
put sanctimony aside. Both sides are accusing one another of closing
down the government.
Mr. Speaker, you voted to close down the government, and then you
voted against opening it up.
Both sides have accused the other of doing what they have done.
Now, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we are here because we
have not succeeded in passing the appropriations bills and sending them
to the
[[Page H594]]
President. That is why we need a continuing resolution.
My Republican friends are in charge of the House. My Republican
friends are in charge of the Senate, and they are in charge of the
White House. We have not passed a single appropriations bill.
My view is, we have not done so because we have been unwilling to
compromise. That is what this is about. It is about Republicans,
frankly, being unwilling, in our opinion, to work together to get to
agreement.
We don't want this shutdown. Our Republican friends say they don't
want the shutdown, and we have said from the beginning that we are
ready to work across the aisle to prevent it. In fact, the Republicans
have had four opportunities. One hundred percent of the Democrats voted
for a 90-day CR to give us time to get to agreement on appropriations
bills and a level of funding.
Mr. Speaker, you know that. We have been talking about that for some
time. We have not come to agreement. Therefore, we find ourselves here,
notwithstanding the fact that we agree on a lot. We have asked to
adhere to parity. Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is the process that you
agreed with Senator Murray that we have followed for the last 4 years.
All we are asking is, let's follow it again. That is why we are here,
because we have not been able to get such an agreement.
We have also asked that we be able to protect--at the request of the
President of the United States--DREAMers, put something on the floor,
as he said, and send it to him, and he would sign it. We want to
reauthorize the CHIP program, the community health centers, and other
health programs. We agree on that.
The American public has got to be so distressed that they see this
going on on this floor of the House.
We want to provide disaster relief to those in Texas, those in
Florida, those in Puerto Rico, those in the Virgin Islands, and, yes,
those who have been subjected to fires in the West.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Maryland an
additional 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues who are in
the majority and control the legislative process: end this shutdown.
Use the authority you are asking for under this rule to bring to the
floor the items on which we agree.
{time} 1730
Mr. Speaker, you have said you would do that, take the tough issues
head-on one at a time. I admired that statement. I will tell my friend,
the Speaker of the House, that I will admire even more the performance.
Speaker Ryan said, in 2012: ``We will not duck the tough issues. We
will not kick the can down the road. We will lead. We will not blame
others . . . .''
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to do just that. Stop ignoring your
responsibility as the majority party to keep the government open and
serve the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 4872, the End
the Shutdown Act of 2018, a continuing resolution through Tuesday that
would immediately reopen the government while negotiations continue on
a budget agreement that adheres to parity, reauthorizing the Children's
Health Insurance Program and other critical healthcare programs,
addressing the issue of DREAMers as was requested by the President of
the United States, and providing assistance to Americans impacted by
natural disasters.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time yielded in this debate was for
debate purposes only.
The Chair must inquire whether the manager, the gentleman from Texas,
will yield for that purpose?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I will not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas does not yield,
and, as such, the request cannot be entertained.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am stretching the parliamentary inquiry,
the nature of this, but did the Speaker hear Mr. Meadows objecting to
my unanimous consent request?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The request was not even entertained.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the chairman of
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, let's set the record straight about the
Children's Health Insurance Program, funding for community health
centers, stopping the cuts on our low-income hospitals, and extending
the Special Diabetes Program for Native Americans.
As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I can tell you that
we did our work. We held hearings, we held markups, we brought a
package to the floor and approved it on November 2. Tragically, only
one dozen or so Democrats voted for that package at that time. It was
fully funded. Community health centers would have 2 years of funding,
the Children's Health Insurance Program 5 years, and the largest
funding amount ever accorded to CHIP. The Special Diabetes Program was
funded.
We care about these programs as a conference, yet it was a partisan
divide, tragically, and it went to the Senate where they couldn't find
the votes to pass it.
So we have come back consistently thereafter to approve children's
healthcare. The Children's Health Insurance Program provides insurance
coverage for 9 million American children and pregnant women. We all
support that as a Congress.
We have had to emergency extend the funding in various continuing
resolutions, most of which my colleagues on the Democratic side have
opposed.
Today, we find ourselves with seven States about to run out of money
and cancelation notices going out to about 2 million people. This is
unnecessary, it is unconscionable, and it should not happen, but it is.
That is why the Children's Health Insurance Program now can be funded
for 6 years in the CR we all voted on, and nearly every Democrat voted
against; but we can do 6 years of funding for CHIP, and with the
changes in other law in the Tax Code, we did not have to identify ways
to pay for it. That is already taken care of.
That is why it is troubling to me to hear the remarks of some of my
colleagues who say they are all for this, and they want to vote for
this when we have given the entire House this opportunity on numerous
occasions to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program, to fund
community health centers, and to fund the Special Diabetes Program.
We didn't have to be here, and you sure as heck didn't have to shut
down the government. Our choice yesterday was vote to fund the
government or not and vote to fund children's health insurance for 9
million children. By the way, in States like mine, that also includes
DACA kids. So when you voted against that yesterday, you voted not to
provide insurance to children and pregnant women in our States. That is
wrong. We are here to govern. We are governing as Republicans, we will
get this government up and running, and we will take care of those
children.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, if we had entertained my unanimous consent request, we
could have accomplished all that the gentleman from Oregon, the
chairman of the committee, just discussed.
I will remind you that the reason Democrats voted against it was
because you took the money for children's health out of children's
health. You decreased the prevention trust fund by some $6 billion
which had, in part, inoculation for children against disease. We
thought robbing from Peter to pay Paul was not a good policy to pursue.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Hood River, Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the distinguished chairman of
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this discussion because
the prevention fund, which the gentleman from Maryland referenced, is a
[[Page H595]]
very important fund--to do what? Provide preventive healthcare.
What do you think children's health insurance is about? Providing
healthcare.
So you don't think providing insurance for pregnant women and
children is about good health? Holy smokes. No wonder you voted ``no.''
No wonder you voted ``no.''
You have used the prevention fund in the past.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is reminded to direct his
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. WALDEN. I thought I was, Mr. Speaker. I guess I was just steering
a little to the left.
Both parties have used the prevention fund to do things they thought
were important. I can't think of anything more important than to use a
portion of the fund that gets replenished by $2 billion every year. The
appropriators--God bless them--decide how those funds get appropriated
every year. We thought it made sense to use a portion of that fund for
children's health. There was still going to be an enormous amount of
money left to be appropriated.
We also thought that people on Medicare making $500,000 a year--
$40,000 a month roughly--could pay $137 more for their Medicare so we
could take care of pregnant women and children and keep our health
centers open. That was one of the pay-fors. We were open to negotiating
because we knew we would have to in the Senate on how else we pay for
it.
But the long and the short of it is: Why are they pitting one group
of kids in America against another?
Governor Sandoval from Nevada said as much. He supports what we did
yesterday. Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts--I talked to him
yesterday--wants the CHIP bill funded.
Can't we put the politics behind us and take care of America's
children?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oregon does not know
what the Health and Prevention Fund is all about. It is more than
children's health. It is vaccines; it is insulin; it is lead paint
protection programs. Know what it is. This is the majority who has
spent the better part of the year decimating an Affordable Care Act and
not caring a wit about what was happening to children and their
healthcare.
We do not fund community health centers, and children who are
eligible for CHIP will not be able to get the help they need because
they can't go a community healthcare center. And if you are really
concerned about the children of this Nation and their healthcare, bring
a clean CHIP bill to this floor and let's make it permanent. Don't
hide. Don't hide behind the children of this country.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we know who voted ``yes'' and we know who
voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Walden) to defend the Republican position.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Connecticut's
strong words.
Here is the deal. The Democrats have used money out of the Prevention
Fund to fund tax cuts over time. That is a true statement.
They have used it for all kinds of things. But the long and short of
it is that we brought two clean CHIP bills; one that fully funded
community health centers and the Special Diabetes Program, and teaching
hospitals that stopped--you know the only thing that did against
ObamaCare that I think a lot of you wrote and asked me to do?
We turned off the cuts to DSH hospitals.
That is a requirement under the existing ObamaCare law.
You told us: You got to turn off these cuts to our hospitals that
serve the low-income people.
We said: You know, you are right.
That is actually bipartisan. Most of what we did was bipartisan that
you all and we all agreed on.
Then, when they didn't like that--and I think only 15 Democrats voted
for that whole package. They are all for community health centers; they
are all for the Special Diabetes Program; they are all for turning off
the DSH cuts; they are all for CHIP, until they have an opportunity to
vote for it, and then they voted ``no.''
And then we brought a clean CHIP bill to the floor as part of keeping
the Federal Government open, and they didn't like that. They were for a
5-year CHIP bill until they wanted 10. We gave them 6. They can't
figure out how to vote ``yes.'' They vote ``no.''
What is it we have to do here to get this done, to get you on board
to stop the partisan politics?
Mr. Speaker, you know this. You are on appropriations. This is
important work. Seven States, including my own, are on the cusp of
running out of funds. Two million Americans are about to get notices
from insurers that this cannot be extended because the money is running
out. We have performed as Republicans. We should perform as Republicans
and Democrats. We should put the health of America's children first,
and they never should have shut down the government.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, you know, I respect my colleague from
Oregon, but you have done nothing over the last year but sabotage the
Affordable Care Act and sabotage healthcare in this country. The fact
of the matter is that the only reason you are willing to bring up this
CHIP bill as part of the CR is because you put in a tax plan that
eliminates the mandate for health insurance, which means 13 million
people are not going to have health insurance in this country over the
next few years, and the money that would have subsidized their premium
now does not have to be paid.
So all of a sudden you say: Okay, we will put a 6-year CHIP bill on
the floor.
The pay-fors were not only from the Prevention Fund. The pay-fors
also said that if somebody didn't pay their health insurance within 30
days, they were going to lose their health insurance. And the CBO said
that another 500,000 people would lose their health insurance.
Everything that this majority has done since day one of this session
has been to sabotage the ACA and not allow people to even know that
they can buy insurance through the exchange, taking away their cost-
sharing subsidies. The list is endless.
And for you to come up here today and suggest that somehow you care
about the kids and you are going to have CHIP continue for the next 6
years, where are those kids going to go?
You haven't done anything about community health centers. Forty to
fifty percent of them have to use community health centers because
people won't take CHIP. You haven't done anything about the hospitals,
the disproportionate share hospitals that many of them have to go to.
That is not addressed in this legislation.
So the only reason that you have brought this bill and put it on the
CR is because of the fact that you have sabotaged health insurance for
millions of Americans. So don't stand up here and tell me that somehow
the Republican Party cares about the kids. They don't. And you also
know that this was not going to pass. You know that it wasn't going to
pass.
{time} 1745
You are not trying to act in a bipartisan, bicameral way. You know
that this is going nowhere. You are responsible for the shutdown, and
putting CHIP in the bill is part of that responsibility that you have
created here today. So don't go on and on and on about how the
Republican Party cares about the kids. The Republican Party does not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded to direct their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Lewisville, Texas (Mr. Burgess), th distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Health of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and from
the Rules Committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, a quick history lesson:
CHIP, 1996, a bipartisan offering; a Democratic President, Bill
Clinton; a Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich; as part of
welfare reform, we are going to move people from welfare to work.
But what do we do about the children?
[[Page H596]]
If those parents are moved into employment, they are going to lose
their Medicaid. Their children will be lost at sea. So CHIP was
created. CHIP was created as a block grant program, maximum flexibility
to the States. It was authorized for 10 years.
Then when the Affordable Care Act passed, CHIP was authorized for 10
years; funded for 5 years, but authorized for 10 years. We are
finishing up that tenth year of authorization with this bill. I
actually wanted only a 2-year bill as we started. I compromised.
Committee Democrats wanted a 5-year bill. Senate Democrats, Senate
Republicans wanted a 5-year bill. We gave you a 5-year bill.
We funded community health centers. We delayed the DSH cuts that were
part of the Affordable Care Act that our hospitals back home were
saying we can't manage.
Remember, everyone was supposed to be able to lay down in the Elysian
Fields of ObamaCare, except they are not, so our hospitals are tasked
with taking care of uninsured and underinsured patients. We need to
delay those DSH cuts.
But here is the thing that really strikes me. We passed a 5-year bill
through this House. Two dozen Democrats voted for it. And then the
Congressional Budget Office, between then and the end of the year,
said: With the repeal of the individual mandate, it just got a lot less
expensive; and, in fact, if you will broaden it out to a 6-year window,
you will return money to the Federal Treasury.
What that tells me is that ObamaCare is so bad and makes everything
so expensive and the States can do it cheaper.
Okay. The CBO put it on sale, and we should buy. And we brought it
back to you on the floor, and the 2 dozen of you who said, ``We liked
it before when it cost more,'' said you didn't like it when it actually
returned money to the Treasury.
I don't know how we can intuit what you will take. We gave you a good
bill. It was part of a 3- or 4-week continuing resolution. It is not
that hard. Let's pass it. Let's do the right thing for America's
children, our military, and Federal workers across this country.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, you know, I am hearing Republicans blame
Democrats, Democrats blame Republicans, people blaming the President,
but you know, I have great respect for the intellectual abilities of
everybody in this body, my colleagues on both sides.
And I think you all know--I certainly know, Mr. Speaker--that the
American people blame all of us for this dysfunction and for the
Federal Government closing. Of course they blame the President, of
course they blame Republicans, and, yes, they also blame Democrats.
Yet here we are continuing to play into the worst fears and
partisanship of the American people, rather than talking about the path
forward. I think we all know what the issues are that separate us, and
they are not that great.
Of course we want to fund the Children's Health Insurance Program. We
heard that from both sides. Let's figure out the plan to do it. Of
course we want to fix deferred action because the President has
canceled the program in March, and we want to find a way to rise to
that challenge, to find a way that aspiring Americans can stay here and
work. Let's do it.
The budget caps and the timing are very important. I understand that
Republicans want to spend more on the military than many Democrats do.
And I have been a constant supporter of trying to find resources that
we don't need in our defense and direct them other ways. Let's
compromise and find a way to do it, but let's not do it while the
government is closed.
Why don't we find a way to do a 2- or 3- or 4-day extension, or at
least get to work, rather than blaming one another on actually solving
these issues, which won't go away?
That is why you find the hesitancy of many of us to say let's just
wait 3 weeks or 4 weeks and hash out the same exact issues that we all
have our opinions on today, because that is much more uncertainty for
the U.S. military, for the American people, for those who rely on basic
government services.
So it is time to actually work together in good faith, to rise to the
responsibility of the office that the American people placed us in, to
find a commonsense way forward that respects our values as an
institution, and to make sure the people are proud of Democrats, proud
of Republicans, and, yes, I dare to say, even proud of the President of
the United States if he plays a constructive role in reopening the
government and solving these pressing issues that face us right here.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
I just want to point out the position we are in. We hear that
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate can't come together because
Democrats are holding up this bill in the Senate. Well, let's just
examine that for a moment.
Why is it that Leader McConnell can't even get a simple majority in
the Senate for the legislation that this body sent over there with 5
Democratic votes?
It is because the legislation that was passed here was not
constituted of a majority position who support DACA, who support
helping those DREAMers; not constituted of a majority of this body who
want to see not only community health centers funded, but also see CHIP
continued, and who want to see pension protection come to this floor.
I believe that there is a majority in this body that is not
constituted of just 218 Republicans that can come together around these
issues. And as long as the leadership continues to not seek a majority
that could deliver legislation through this body but also has the
chance to gain support in the Senate, we are going to continue to find
ourselves unable to govern.
There is a majority that can work together on these issues. We ought
to seek that majority.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4871, the Pay Our
Military Act, to guarantee pay and death benefits for our military.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) to discuss our proposal.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the failure of President Trump and the
Republican-controlled Congress to do their work on time and in good
faith has serious consequences for our country and for our national
security.
The Republican approach of governing by short-term continuing
resolution deprives our military of long-term budget certainty that
they need to keep our country safe.
President Trump's Secretary of Defense has warned of the severe harm
operating under continuing resolutions and the harm that it has done to
our military readiness.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the President and for Republicans to end
this chaos and to work with us on a long-term budget deal that reopens
our government, adequately funds our military, and upholds our
commitments here at home.
Sadly, the government shutdown that began at midnight means that
hundreds of thousands of government employees who serve in critical
roles keeping us safe will now be forced to work without pay. We all
thank them for their service.
As the President himself has acknowledged, the Republican-inflicted
shutdown means that our active military will not get paid, causing
serious repercussions for their families.
I grew up in a military family and I understand the sacrifices our
servicemembers and their families make. And I know all of us, as
Democrats and Republicans, agree that it is just plain wrong to ask our
servicemen and -women in uniform to put their lives on the line without
pay.
[[Page H597]]
That is why we have introduced the Pay Our Military Act of 2018. This
bill provides for both pay and death benefits for our servicemen and -
women during this government shutdown. It includes pay and support for
the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and the Coast Guard. This bill
ensures that our military is able to perform their duties during any
shutdown this fiscal year without worrying about the financial security
of their families.
Should one of our servicemen or -women take and make the ultimate
sacrifice, this bill ensures that their family will be taken care of by
our country. That is the least we can do.
There is a strong precedent for this bill. This House passed similar
legislation unanimously--unanimously--during the last government
shutdown in 2013. This morning, President Trump tweeted that our
country needs to do even better by our military. The Pay Our Military
Act fulfills this mission.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can bring up this
bill and pay our troops.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Butler, Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we are locked in a debate
today over something that we don't have to be locked in a debate about.
Our friends on the other side know that everything that was in our
proposal, you agreed with. There was nothing in that proposal that you
were against. I hear you talked tonight about all the things that you
are still in favor of. Those were the same things that we had in our
bill the other day, but you voted against it.
We are now in the middle of a Schumer shutdown, not because of what
the House didn't do, but because of what the Senate refuses to do.
Dates have importance. We knew the government would shut down if we did
not fund it yesterday.
We know that DACA has until March 5 to be addressed. Yet, today, we
come here with this phony argument that somehow we are on the same
page, we are trying to do the same things. But do you know what? We
just can't vote that way to get there.
America is watching, and America is understanding right now that this
is the Schumer shutdown. Let there be no question about who it is that
has failed the American people.
Let there be no question that when it comes to CHIP and all of those
bleeding hearts that say, ``You need to do this, you need to do this,''
and say, ``We did it for 5 years, now we want to do it for 6 years,''
you are still saying, ``Not quite good enough for me to vote on.''
And when you talk about our military and how much you admire what 1
percent does to protect the rest of the 99 percent of the country, and
then you stand up here and say, ``I would have voted for it except for
one thing, it doesn't include DACA.''
There is no legislation for DACA right now. It was never in jeopardy.
We have until March 5 to get it straightened out. But we do not have
any more time to sit here and not open up this government.
My friends, please, abandon the Gruber effect and tell the truth and
know that America is watching, and America understands that this
shutdown is based on Mr. Schumer's inability to get his people on
board, people who aren't necessarily needed to be involved.
We know we can't do it with 51 votes. We need to do it with 60 votes.
Please look in your civics book and find out how it works. Let's vote
tonight. Let's walk out of here tonight united as an American House of
the people.
My time may be expired, but do you know what? Americans' patience is
getting more and more expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, maybe my good friend was not able to
keep his eyes awake last night to see that a bipartisan group of
Members in the other body voted resoundingly to defeat this
insignificant and this shallow CR that you sent to the other body.
Maybe you were not able to see that.
So what I will say to you is that I join with my whip in a 4-day CR,
because maybe you have just forgotten the fact that the most
catastrophic storm hit Texas, and then others went on to Puerto Rico
and the Virgin Islands and Florida.
{time} 1800
No one has heard one word about those who are suffering with housing
that still looks like this, or those houses that are under water. Maybe
you don't know that the children who need children's health insurance
need the clinics that you gutted.
I would ask you, if you really have any kind of compassion, to read
Mr. Steele's comments, who indicated, as a former chair of the
Republican National Committee, that those who are at fault for shutting
down the government is a Republican President, Republican House, and
Republican Senate.
You can't do your job. Democrats are trying to do their job for the
American people. You shut the government down. Worry about those who
are suffering from hurricanes.
Where is your compassion?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, the Chair reminds Members to
please address their remarks to the Chair and not to one another.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentlewoman from Texas
that this body passed the bill, this body did its work, and this body
got its work done.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms.
Cheney).
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I understand why our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle are having a hard time keeping track of their
arguments.
We watched yesterday the distinguished minority whip stand up and say
that we ought to do our work, and then move to adjourn.
Mr. Speaker, we watched today, repeatedly, while our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle claim that they believe in providing
funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, yet they voted
against it.
We have watched repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle go down the list of all of the damage that is being
done by this shutdown, but they won't end the shutdown.
We agree, the shutdown is absolutely unconscionable in these
circumstances. Every time, Mr. Speaker, a Member on the other side of
the aisle--who failed to vote for all 12 of those appropriations bills
that we put on the floor and we passed through this House--stands up
and talks about us doing our job needs to look in the mirror, Mr.
Speaker, because we have done our job.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the defense of this
Nation, we have no higher obligation or sacred duty or responsibility
in this House than to provide funding for our men and women in uniform.
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, when I hear my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle say things like, ``Our military will be just
fine under this shutdown,'' I would remind them that we have young men
and women in uniform on the front lines right now, who are putting
their lives on the line for all of us, and they are not getting paid
because Chuck Schumer and the Democrats in the Senate are refusing to
be in a position where they will let this government reopen.
Now, I am sure that our colleagues don't want us to remember and
remind the American people what they have done or what their leaders
have said, but we will do it every single time until this absolutely
unconscionable, complete dereliction of our duty stops.
End this shutdown and fund our troops.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Al Green).
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain why there is a
government shutdown.
There is a government shutdown because the self-proclaimed great
dealmaker breaks more deals than he makes. Just ask the Americans who
are going to pay for the wall he said Mexico would pay for. Just ask
the Senators who took him the deal that he asked for.
Mr. Speaker, when you break more deals than you make, you are not a
great dealmaker; you are a great deal breaker. We have a great deal
breaker in the White House. That is why we have a shutdown.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H598]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader and our
great friend and a woman we are very happy about.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for
her leadership. I also thank all of the members of the Rules Committee
for the time that they put in bringing rules to the floor that relate
to a vast array of legislation that we deal with here.
Today, we are talking about martial law so that we will be prepared
to take up something that will open up the government and meet the
needs of the American people.
It is interesting to see the enthusiasm on both sides on these
subjects because we have a long history on some of these issues. We
have a long history and a commitment to CHIP. When we brought it to the
floor when I was Speaker, when we first had a Democratic President who
would sign the bill, 144 Republicans voted against that bill. But that
is then. This is now.
I think that now we are closer than the debate here would indicate. I
think there is a path forward. I think that is how we have to be
thinking about what is next.
We all have our, shall we say, reputations for where we have been on
certain votes about CHIP, about shutting down the government, and the
rest, but let's put that aside. The challenge that we have right now is
what is that path.
That path has four corners to it. One of them is the caps parity. We
have talked about parity. Other Members have talked about it. I am sure
Mr. Hoyer did again today. It is about parity. If you are going to have
increases in defense, we need the same increases in domestic. If that
is what the Defense Department decides its missions require, then we
want to be respectful of that.
But we also know that in the domestic budget, one-third of the
budget--34 percent--are security functions: Homeland Security,
antiterrorism activities at the Department of Justice, Veterans
Affairs, the Department of State. That is 34 percent of the domestic
budget.
We are saying that the strength of our country is not measured just
in our military might--as important as that is and respectful of it
that we are--but also in these security functions in the domestic
budget. In addition to that, in the health, education, and well-being
of the American people, which are also on the domestic side.
So I think on the caps, we just have to get in a room and make those
decisions. The challenge that I see is that it has been reported to me
that there are those on the Republican side who have some unease in
increasing the domestic budget because they know that they already had
a big increase in the deficit in the tax bill and are reluctant to add
any more investments for fear that it would increase the deficit.
However, these investments in research and development, in education,
and in infrastructure, really bring revenue to the Treasury, so they
help decrease the deficit. In fact, I think most economists will tell
you that nothing brings more money to the Treasury than the investments
in education, early childhood, K-12, higher education, postgrad, and
lifetime learning for our workers.
So in that spirit of saying they want more in defense, and we are
respectful of that, we need more in domestic, and hopefully you will be
respectful of that. I think that we can come to terms on that.
And then there is the question of pay-fors: How is that--or is it--
paid for?
So that is one thing. That is just you sit down, you negotiate, and
you get it done.
I am not an appropriator. Mr. Hoyer is an appropriator; Mr. Clyburn
is an appropriator; Mrs. Lowey, as our ranking member with such
distinction; and Mr. Frelinghuysen on your side. Appropriators know how
to get it done. They know the numbers. They can do the math, left to
their own devices. It is when other factors weigh in that it becomes
more challenging.
Let's just say: let's see if we can get that done, because that will
be more dispositive of shortening the time between where we are now and
if we get a solution.
The DREAMers are a value to us. We told the President right from the
start that it is not an issue, it is not a bill, it is a value of who
we are as America. I think that we can come to terms on that subject as
well.
But make no mistake, if there never were one DREAMer in our country,
we still would have this challenge on the money side of the debate.
Let's not try to assign responsibility to the DREAMers for the fact
that we don't have the increase in defense. We are willing to go to
that place as we go, honoring parity. That is what we agreed to in the
budget agreement. That is what the Speaker agreed to as chair of the
Budget Committee.
Why are we departing from that and then blaming it on the DREAMers?
And the security, we all believe in securing our borders, North and
South. We can come to terms on that, if we really believe that we
should.
None of us believes in a--well, I can only speak for our side of the
aisle--shutting down the government. We believe in a government role in
meeting the needs of the American people. We subject any initiatives to
do that to the harshest scrutiny because we know that the American
people need effective initiatives to meet their needs.
Let's take a deep breath. Let's calm down.
Now, for example, Mr. Welch led the way with a large number--100-some
Members of the House--signing a letter to the President.
I think it is really important for you to realize this. When we said
we wanted more domestic investment, here is what we were talking about.
We were very clear to choose only those initiatives that are bipartisan
that would pass on the floor with strong bipartisan support.
That means preserving the Bipartisan Budget Act, as I discussed, and
delivering urgently needed resources to communities fighting the opioid
epidemic. That is what we said to the President. This is one of the
increases on the domestic side: addressing the opioid epidemic.
Rescuing heroic veterans, who are facing a dire shortfall at the VA.
Opioids. Veterans.
Supporting access by funding CHIP, community health centers, medical
education for primary care doctors--the package that always went
together.
Preserving America's endangered pensions. We had bipartisan support
for that. That needs more discussion, but we want to do it.
Providing additional disaster recovery for Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Texas, Florida, California--States impacted by
wildfires.
There is nothing partisan about this, in addition to protecting our
DREAMers, which, again, has bipartisan support in the House and in the
Senate. We would want to pass the Dream Act, as well as then engage in
the discussion on the borders, which we are completely open to.
This is not a: Just give us some money. It is shared values--
Democrats and Republicans--and we are saying to the President: Help us
on this money side of the debate because it is so very important.
We can talk all day about who said what about what and all the rest
of that. I don't think shutting down the government is cool, as Mr.
Mulvaney said, but let's leave him to that.
We do know that government by CR is not the best way to go.
I think that we could take one day--take this evening--sit down: Caps
parity; pay-fors--probably easy; there is not a whole lot of
opportunity there, but whatever it is--and DACA, the DREAMers.
Again, if there never were one DREAMer, we would still be having this
discussion about the money side of it.
My view--and correct me if I am wrong--is that there is a resistance
on the Republican side of the House--I can't speak for the Senate, and
I haven't seen evidence of the Senate--to resist parity when it comes
to increasing funding, even for these priorities that we spelled out,
because it will increase the deficit, which has been greatly increased
by the tax bill.
{time} 1815
So I would see, for some remaining, if existing, deficit hawks, that
you might have that concern.
Let me just also add that if there were not one DREAMer in America,
[[Page H599]]
America would be at a loss. These young people have come to this
country with their parents. They have made us so proud with their
diligence, with their attendance at school, service in the military,
working. I have heard from champions of industries, many of whom
celebrated the passage of the tax bill, saying: The people who work in
our firms are exemplary. They are stars in our company.
So why don't we not use them as an excuse not to face the reality
that we have domestic responsibilities that we must deal with.
But there is a path. Our appropriators are used to working together.
The leadership has to make these decisions. There is no reason we
shouldn't be able to do this by tomorrow and then give the
appropriators the time to write it up, but to come to those terms.
So let's all take a deep breath, let's understand our
responsibilities to the American people. Let us withhold, as I have
done, some of the--I have curbed my enthusiasm about certain other
things I have heard said and done here. I haven't even brought the
President's picture out saying, on his one-year anniversary: ``What
this country needs is a good `shutdown.'''
He said it earlier, but now he got one for his anniversary. Well, it
didn't completely curb my enthusiasm in that regard, but I do say that
we have more common ground than is reflected in how this has proceeded.
Let us find a better course so that we can stay on that course as we
meet other challenges that face our country.
God has blessed us with the privilege to serve here. We respect each
other. If we don't respect each other, respect the people who sent us
here. We owe them a lot more than the government being shut down.
So let's take a path to open it up, understanding that it will
involve compromise. It is going to involve bipartisanship,
transparency, and openness in how we get it done, but in a way that
brings unity to our country. I think that that is something we all
subscribe to. I certainly hope so.
I call upon my colleagues to join us in sitting down and getting it
done. I call upon the Speaker to be willing to bring some legislation
to the floor that will do this and which would have bipartisan support.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their attention.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Sunnyside, Washington (Mr. Newhouse), the gentleman from the Rules
Committee.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the good gentleman from
the Rules Committee for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in this most interesting debate on the rule that I have
ever seen, I rise in support of restoring a fully functioning Federal
Government.
I, along with most all of my colleagues, supported the continuing
resolution keeping the Federal Government open, keeping funding for our
military, reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program.
Senate Democrats rejected that solution. They voted against keeping
the Federal Government open, fully funding CHIP, against giving
certainty to the more than 60,000 low-income children in my own State
of Washington.
Now, our military professionals are working to reduce the impacts to
national security due to the government shutdown. Secretary Mattis
himself is giving shutdown guidance to the men and women in uniform,
saying: ``Steady as she goes. Hold the line. I know the Nation can
count on you. Stay alert.''
His message speaks to the admirable professionalism of our troops.
These men and women deserve their pay, and their families should not
have to worry about their paychecks. In no way does shutting down the
Federal Government serve them or us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, in my district, important work like the
Hanford cleanup and our national laboratory must continue.
Today, I find myself, as well as many, frustrated. As a supporter of
the President's call for Congress to act to work on a bipartisan
solution on DACA, let's reopen the government and continue our
negotiations.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing here today
on the one-year anniversary of President Trump's inauguration is a
complete failure by the majority in leadership and governance.
For the first time ever, we have a shutdown where one party controls
the White House and both houses of Congress, and Federal employees will
risk being sent home and losing pay.
Not a surprise, given the twisted, upside-down priorities that
dominate the Republican agenda.
Instead of expanding health coverage, Trump and Republicans have been
focused on taking it away. Instead of providing responsible tax relief
focused on America's middle class, Republicans passed a huge tax scam
that produced handouts to corporations and the wealthy and explodes the
deficit.
Now, rather than passing a responsible long-term spending plan, we
have another shortsighted budget Band-Aid and the historic Trump budget
shutdown.
Our colleagues have clearly been reading from their alternative facts
dictionary today, because it does not pass the straight-face test in
any corner of this country that Republicans actually care anything
about people's healthcare. Please, give me a break.
Let's end the Trump shutdown by working together and focusing on
bipartisan progress. Americans deserve at least that much from this
body.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Messer).
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, the Schumer shutdown is proving, once again,
that the U.S. Senate is broken.
The House did its job and voted to keep the government open. Now both
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate need to do their job, too.
Unfortunately, because of the filibuster, the Senate is being
governed by a liberal minority that would rather shut down the
government and play politics than pass President Trump's agenda and
listen to the will of the American people.
If they don't want to do their jobs, then we need to move on without
them. It is time to end the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. The American
people demand it. The Senate needs to change its rules.
If there was no filibuster, this government shutdown would already be
over, because the bill for government funding got 50 votes in the
Senate last night.
So let's stop the political games. End the filibuster, open our
government, and put the American people back in charge.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have an enormous amount of
respect for the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, but I would
remind everybody that, back in September, he and a majority of the
Armed Services Committee Republicans voted against the CR, in
September, 4 months ago. Why? Because at the time, he said: A CR is
devastating for our military. It is the worst possible thing to do to
our military.
Four months ago, he said that, and now he says that we should vote
for a CR.
Think about it. Unless that vote, back in September, was simply
hollow and hypocritical, he was prepared to shut down the government in
September rather than continue to fund our military, and, by the way,
the rest of the government, with a CR.
He was right in September, but it took Democrats to actually have the
courage of that conviction to say: No, we are not going to continue to
gut the military drip by drip by drip, CR by CR. We are going to stand
up and say, no. Pass appropriations bills.
That is why we are doing this.
I would also point out that five Republican Senators voted against
the House bill. It is not a filibuster. They don't have 50 votes in the
Senate for what you guys want to do.
Mac Thornberry was right, back in September. A CR is terrible for the
military. Don't support a CR. Fund the military.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, Mac Thornberry is right. The chairman of
[[Page H600]]
the Armed Services Committee cares very much about the men and women,
not only of the military, where my son serves in Pearl Harbor in the
United States Navy, but about every one of our people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Clarendon, Texas
(Mr. Thornberry), the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have consistently said, and I continue
to say, that every day under a continuing resolution does damage to the
United States military. There is no question about it. I also have said
today that a government shutdown does more damage to the United States
military.
I want to just make one other point. I think we can have debates
about the proper level and the proper way to fund the military, but
what is completely unacceptable is to hold the United States military
hostage for some other political agenda that has nothing to do with
them, and that is what has been going on.
Mr. Speaker, this House passed a defense appropriations bill for the
full year back before October 1. That needs to pass now. Get the
military out of this political drama and set them free.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we are 3\1/2\ months into
the fiscal year without a budget. Republicans are proposing to lurch
along another month with no resolution in sight and no commitment to
address critical investments. Democrats will not be a party to further
delay.
It is not a great mystery how to deal with this. We have done it each
of the last 4 years. We must have a year-long budget in place with a
bipartisan agreement to adjust the defense and nondefense caps so that
we can pass our 12 appropriations bills. Democrats have been willing to
enter into such agreement for at least 6 months.
Republican leaders need to reject their Tea Party extremists and
conclude a budget agreement across the aisle.
We also must be assured of progress toward resolving the status of
DREAMers, the 800,000 young people who were brought here as children
and have known no other country. President Trump created a crisis in
removing the DREAMers' protection. He asked Congress to devise a long-
term solution; he then blew up the solution. They are dangerously
exposed. We must address their dilemma.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth Republican government shutdown in the
last 30 years. It is the first shutdown in modern history when one
party held the House, the Senate, and the White House.
During the 2013 government shutdown, the economy lost $1.5 billion a
day. I am sure it is even more now.
We need to work across the aisle, and the majority needs to work with
us, and let's solve this problem.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and the
rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we know why we are here. We are here because Republicans
respectfully passed a bill that responsibly took items before the
American people and answered the question--we answered the question
about funding the government; we answered the question about the
Children's Health Insurance Program. We made sure that we did not have
a tax on medical devices that hurts so many people and so many seniors.
We have made sure that we delayed for yet another year the devastating
effects that would be mostly on union workers' paychecks related to the
Cadillac plan.
{time} 1830
We further, then, said, ``We are going to delay the $70 insurance tax
that would be on every single American.''
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans did this because we considered this to
be the right thing to do. But most importantly, what we have done is
passed our bill. We convinced our body that it was important to avoid
shutting down the government.
We voted ``yes.'' It was real simple: either ``yes'' or ``no.'' Mr.
Schumer made sure that the answer from the Senate would be ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that we deeply believe not only in
what we are doing, but we are going to stand for the people in the
United States military.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following
statement of Administration Policy:
Statement of Administration Policy
H.J. Res. 125--Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018--Rep.
Frelinghuysen, R-NJ
The Administration supports passage of H.J. Res. 125, the
Extension of Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018.
This legislation funds the Federal Government at current
spending levels through February 16, 2018, providing more
time for the Congress and the Administration to reach a
longer-term funding agreement. The Administration supports
the bill's multiyear funding extension of the Children's
Health Insurance Program (CHIP). It also supports the
legislation's delay of harmful Obamacare tax increases,
including the medical device tax.
The Administration believes that looming defense spending
cuts are harmful to our national security and military
readiness, and supports responsible efforts to undo the
defense sequestration in the context of a two-year budget
agreement. As funding discussions continue, the
Administration will continue to reject arbitrary demands for
lower priority domestic funding that jeopardize critical
defense funding.
The safety and security of our Nation depends on a strong
military. Short-term funding measures are not ideal, but a
lapse in funding for the Federal Government would be even
more harmful for our military and our national security.
If H.J. Res. 125 were presented to the President in its
current form, his advisors would recommend that he sign the
bill into law.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows
An Amendment to H. Res. 708 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4871) making continuing appropriations for military pay and
death benefits in the event of a Government shutdown. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4871.
____
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
[[Page H601]]
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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Rhode Island will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, has debate concluded on the rule?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yielded back the balance my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the rule has expired.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
4872, the End the Shutdown Act of 2018, a continuing resolution through
Tuesday that would immediately reopen the government while negotiations
continue on a budget agreement that adheres to parity, reauthorizing
the Children's Health Insurance Program and other critical healthcare
programs, addressing DREAMers, and providing assistance to Americans
impacted by natural disasters.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking unanimous consent to bring this bill up to
reopen the government. To all the claims my Republican colleagues just
made about opening the government, here is their chance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under guidelines consistently issued by
successive Speakers, as recorded in section 956 of the House Rules and
Manual, the Chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless it
is cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leaderships.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is no ruling before the House.
The gentleman is no longer recognized.
The question is on ordering the previous question.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
January 20, 2018, on page H601, the following appeared: The
SPEAKER pro tempore. There is no ruling before the House.The
gentleman is no longer recognized. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on ordering the previous question.
The online version has been corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro
tempore. There is no ruling before the House.The gentleman is no
longer recognized. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 180, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 41]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
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
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
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--180
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
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)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Heck
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
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'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
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--26
Abraham
Barton
Boyle, Brendan F.
Bridenstine
Buck
Clay
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeSantis
Foster
Granger
Green, Gene
Hanabusa
Higgins (NY)
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Massie
Meehan
O'Halleran
Reichert
Russell
Scalise
Vargas
{time} 1848
So the previous question was ordered.
[[Page H602]]
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 235,
nays 170, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 42]
YEAS--235
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Bera
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carbajal
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Correa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
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)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
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
Murphy (FL)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Panetta
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
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--170
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--25
Abraham
Barton
Boyle, Brendan F.
Bridenstine
Buck
Clay
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeSantis
Garrett
Granger
Green, Gene
Grothman
Higgins (NY)
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Lujan Grisham, M.
Massie
Meehan
O'Halleran
Reichert
Scalise
Vargas
{time} 1854
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.
____________________