[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 6, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H821-H830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1892, HONORING 
                          HOMETOWN HEROES ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 727 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 727

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     1892) to amend title 4, United States Code, to provide for 
     the flying of the flag at half-staff in the event of the 
     death of a first responder in the line of duty, with the 
     Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, 
     without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered 
     by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his 
     designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment with 
     an amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     115-58 modified by the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate 
     amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without 
     intervening motion.

  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 Rochester, New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), my dear friend and ranking member of the Rules 
Committee, 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

[[Page H822]]

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. The rule provides for consideration of the 
Senate amendment to H.R. 1892, the Further Extension of Continuing 
Appropriations Act of 2018.
  Mr. Speaker, the House amendment will extend government funding until 
March 23, 2018, while simultaneously funding the Department of Defense 
for a full year. This will ensure our Nation's defense and pay for our 
proud servicemen and -women who will no longer be in jeopardy during 
ongoing discussions on funding for the long-term spending caps, until 
we agree to that.
  Mr. Speaker, we just have come out of Rules Committee where we had a 
hearing for several hours where we detailed not only the parts of this 
bill, but also the agreement and disagreement between the two parties. 
I want you to know that I am pleased to report today the Rules 
Committee favorably reported out this bill, and we will be talking 
about the substance of that today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I can't support this continuing resolution 
today.
  The great government of the United States of America that has been 
called ``the last best hope of man'' cannot be funded in tranches of 
maybe 2 weeks to 3 weeks. This is the fifth continuing resolution that 
we have done since the 30th of September. That is an atrocity. I mean, 
I can't think of any legislative body anywhere totally unable to do its 
job. And as sorry as I am to say it because of my great respect and 
affection for my fellow Members, I don't believe that this majority is 
capable of governing.
  We are 2 days before the shutdown of the government of the United 
States, before it closes for business. Late last night, about 10 p.m., 
they finally released the details of this short-term spending bill. And 
we will be back here as soon as this one expires doing yet another one.
  We are 5 months into the fiscal year, and this is the majority's 
fifth continuing resolution. We are virtually in the same position 
today as we were on September 8, December 7, December 21, and January 
18 when this Chamber passed the prior continuing resolutions.
  The majority isn't learning from any of this. They just keep 
repeating those mistakes. Like the bill before it, the proposal was 
written by and for the majority.
  Let me repeat. The Democrats had virtually no say in this.
  And once again, it ignores many of the priorities that we all agree 
need to be addressed: providing additional disaster relief after a 
storm season that saw historic wildfires, hurricanes, and mudslides; 
three rail wrecks in 2 weeks with fatalities, certainly proving to us, 
if we didn't know it already, that our neglect of the railroads, the 
bridges, the infrastructure in the United States is a mess. Saving 
America's endangered pensions is also a priority, and extending 
additional health access for our veterans certainly is not just a 
priority, but an obligation.

                              {time}  1515

  What is included here is woefully inadequate. This bill pays for 
extending community health centers--which is very important to me, let 
me hasten to add--by eviscerating funding for one of the most important 
parts of the Affordable Care Act that helps keep people well: the 
Prevention Fund. This fund focuses on children's health by expanding 
access to lifesaving vaccines and reducing the risk of lead poisoning, 
among many other things. The majority is paying for opening the centers 
by gutting the Prevention Fund while we are experiencing the worst flu 
epidemic in nearly a decade.
  Now, I have heard a lot of talk about prioritizing the national 
defense. We don't take a back seat on our side to anybody who loves and 
respects the people who defend us, who every day--an all-volunteer 
military--stands on the line for us.
  But we also believe that this bill does not raise the Budget Control 
Act sequester level of spending caps for nondefense. That is a shame, 
and it is also the Budget Control Act.
  Mr. Speaker, one-third of the nondefense domestic budget that we are 
trying to get parity for goes to national security, part of our 
defense: to our veterans, to homeland security, the State Department, 
the Justice Department, and counterterrorism initiatives.
  Refusing to equally raise the defense and nondefense caps is 
irresponsible. Secretary of Defense General Mattis has said: No enemy 
is more harmful than unpredictable funding from Congress.
  But it isn't just defense that has had undependable funding. Not a 
single agency of the Federal Government knows from one week to another 
whether they will be funded or what they can do. We have cut down on 
almost everything that they can do, including travel to places that 
they absolutely need to be. It is pretty awful.
  We have had the warnings, yet here we are today with a fifth short-
term continuing resolution. The majority has 238 seats in the Chamber, 
but it only holds 51 seats in the Senate. They have the ability to 
draft a partisan agenda, and routinely do.
  And we just saw that spectacle coming from the Intelligence Committee 
in the House, when a memo, governed by the majority--and one was acted 
on and put out for the public--but we are waiting and hoping that the 
one for the minority will be given the approval by the President of the 
United States.
  But for anything, including this bill, to have a chance of getting 60 
votes in the Senate and becoming law, you have to involve the 
Democrats. They don't have enough over there. Fifty-one is not 60. This 
is simple math.
  The minority leader in the Senate has said this proposal is a 
nonstarter. He added that moving forward with this plan would 
``jeopardize the positive discussions going on right now about the 
budget, immigration, disaster aid, and more.'' So we know, standing 
here today, that we are wasting our time.
  We should finally bring an end to the continuing resolutions and the 
failed my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing. That is the only 
way the majority can fulfill what Speaker Ryan pledged when he took the 
gavel and said: ``Only a fully functioning House can truly represent 
the people. And If there were ever a time for us to step up, this would 
be that time.''
  Mr. Speaker, the American people and the world have watched for 
months as the greatest democracy ever devised has been defined by its 
dysfunction. If ever there was one, this is the time for the majority 
to step up.
  I am very much concerned, Mr. Speaker, that we are reaching the 
tipping point. That the dysfunction and chaos displayed not just with 
the actions of the stock market in the past 3 days, but our inability 
to really know whether or not we are going to keep the lights on has 
cost us dearly with respect to the rest of the world. And I need to 
point out as well, just a few minutes ago, the President of the United 
States thought that a government shutdown would be a good idea.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague for being here 
so that we may move forward on this important funding for the 
government.
  Mr. Speaker, from time to time, there are Members of Congress who 
distinguish themselves in ways that draw not only attention upon an 
organization more than just themselves, but also distinction. Our next 
speaker is a gentleman who served for 14 years in the United States Air 
Force. He holds the record for the fastest nonstop flight ever in the 
world in one of the United States Air Force planes that is called a B-1 
bomber. This gentleman not only served with distinction and honor but 
is here today to speak about the importance of funding our United 
States military.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Stewart).
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those kind words. 
Chairman Sessions is a hero of mine. There are a lot of reasons why I 
hold

[[Page H823]]

him in such high regard. One of the reasons is that he understands a 
couple of very important things.
  I think the first thing he understands is that the primary 
responsibility of the Federal Government is to keep Americans safe in a 
chaotic world. The second thing he understands is that nothing is more 
important than thing one.
  It is for these reasons that I rise in strong support of the rule and 
the underlying legislation to fund our military. Our inability to 
constantly fund our Federal Government has real consequences, but it 
has no greater consequence than it has for our military members.
  Nothing impacts our military with more devastating effect than the 
lack of sustained, predictable funding. We need to do what is right for 
the men and women in uniform charged with defending our country, 
including, I might add, members of my own family who are deployed, even 
as we speak.
  The uncertainty of funding creates problems in the supply chain with 
regard to everything from large acquisitions to the smallest repair 
part. It impacts training as funding is needed to lock in major events 
to include logistical support, movement of personnel and equipment, and 
access to sufficient types and quantities of munitions. I have spoken 
with military members, as recently as the last few weeks, who told me 
about their funding and their training being canceled because of the 
threat of a government shutdown. It has implications for their safety 
and their well-being.

  In a letter to Congress last September, Secretary Mattis warned of 
the consequences: funding through a CR cannot be reprogrammed; training 
impacts begin immediately, as I have said; and hiring actions and 
recruiting is curtailed.
  The bottom line is this: governing by crisis has had an enormous 
impact on our military, and it is time we do what is right and fully 
fund our country's defense.
  Funding the Department of Defense in the year 2018 will keep 
Americans safe by boosting our national defense and give a much-needed 
pay raise to our troops and an increase in end strength for the Active 
Duty, Guard, and the Reserve.
  Let me end with a personal observation. These wings that I proudly 
wear are my father's Air Force wings. He was an Air Force pilot in 
World War II. He had five sons who served in the military. I am proud 
to say that I was one of them, as Chairman Sessions has indicated. As I 
indicated as well, I have members of my own family who are deployed 
now, or will deploy in the next year. These young men and women put 
their lives on the line to serve and to protect our country. For 
heaven's sake, let's give them the funding to do that. Let's do the 
right thing. That is why I support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, President Trump said to reporters earlier today that if 
Congress can't reach a deal on immigration: ``I'd love to see a 
shutdown if we can't get this stuff taken care of. If we have to shut 
it down because the Democrats don't want safety . . . let's shut it 
down.''
  We are also the people who were accused last week at the State of the 
Union--because we didn't show great enthusiasm for his speech--that we 
were treasonous. It is really pretty frightening to me, Mr. Speaker, 
what is going on here, and I can't avoid talking about it. I said 
earlier in the Rules Committee that I think we are reaching a tipping 
point, and I honestly do believe that.
  But this isn't the first time that President Trump encouraged a 
government shutdown, which would be devastating. The last one we had 
was for 16 days and took $24 billion out of this economy. This is 
remarkable and, I think, pretty sad.
  The President keeps injecting uncertainty into what already is a 
chaotic process from the majority. No one in this Chamber is against 
safety. We are asking them to take action on the bipartisan priorities 
that have languished while they passed tax cuts for millionaires.
  In 2016, during an interview with CBS This Morning, President Trump 
said: ``I'm the king of debt. I'm great with debt. Nobody knows the 
debt better than me.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, according to this article from The Washington Post 
from February 3: ``The U.S. Treasury expects to borrow $955 billion 
this fiscal year. . . . It's the highest amount of borrowing in 6 
years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the Federal Government 
borrowed last year.''
  He is definitely the king of debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article from The Washington 
Post titled: ``The U.S. Government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion 
this year, an 84 percent jump from last year.''

             [From the Washington Post, February 3, 2018.]

 The U.S. Government Is Set To Borrow Nearly $1 Trillion This Year, an 
                     84 Percent Jump From Last Year

                           (By Heather Long)

       It was another crazy news week, so it's understandable if 
     you missed a small but important announcement from the 
     Treasury Department: The federal government is on track to 
     borrow nearly $1 trillion this fiscal year--Trump's first 
     full year in charge of the budget.
       That's almost double what the government borrowed in fiscal 
     2017.
       Here are the exact figures: The U.S. Treasury expects to 
     borrow $955 billion this fiscal year, according to documents 
     released Wednesday. It's the highest amount of borrowing in 
     six years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the federal 
     government borrowed last year.
       Treasury mainly attributed, the increase to the ``fiscal 
     outlook.'' The Congressional Budget Office was more blunt. In 
     a report this week, the CBO said tax receipts are going to be 
     lower because of the new tax law.
       The uptick in borrowing is yet another complication in the 
     heated debates in Congress over whether to spend more money 
     on infrastructure, the military, disaster relief and other 
     domestic programs. The deficit is already up significantly, 
     even before Congress allots more money to any of these areas.
       ``We're addicted to debt,'' says Marc Goldwein, senior 
     policy director at Committee for a Responsible Federal 
     Budget. He blames both parties for the situation.
       What's particularly jarring is this is the first time 
     borrowing has jumped this much (as a share of GDP) in a non-
     recession time since Ronald Reagan was president, says Ernie 
     Tedeschi, a former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury who is 
     now head of fiscal analysis at Evercore ISI. Under Reagan, 
     borrowing spiked because of a buildup in the military, 
     something Trump is advocating again.
       Trump didn't mention the debt--or the ongoing budget 
     deficits--in his State of the Union address. The absence of 
     any mention of the national debt was frustrating for Goldwein 
     and others who warn that America has a major economic problem 
     looming.
       ``It is terrible. Those deficits and the debt that keeps 
     rising is a serious problem, not only in the long run, but 
     right now,'' Harvard economist Martin Feldstein, a former 
     Reagan adviser, told Bloomberg News.
       The White House got a taste this week of just how 
     problematic this debt situation could get. Investors are 
     concerned about all the additional borrowing and the 
     likelihood of higher inflation, which is why the interest 
     rates on U.S. government bonds hit the highest level since 
     2014. That, in turn, partly drove the worst weekly sell-off 
     in the stock market in two years.
       The belief in Washington and on Wall Street has long been 
     that the U.S. government could just keep issuing debt because 
     people around the world are eager to buy up this safe-haven 
     asset. But there may be a limit to how much the market wants, 
     especially if inflation starts rising and investors prefer to 
     ditch bonds for higher-returning stocks.
       ``Some of my Wall Street clients are starting to talk 
     recession in 2019 because of these issues. Fiscal policy is 
     just out of control,'' says Peter Davis, a former tax 
     economist in Congress who now runs Davis Capital Investment 
     Ideas.
       The Federal Reserve was also buying a lot of U.S. Treasury 
     debt since the crisis, helping to beef up demand. But the Fed 
     recently decided to stop doing that now that the economy has 
     improved. It's another wrinkle as Treasury has to look for 
     new buyers.
       Tedeschi, the former Treasury adviser to the Obama 
     administration, calls it ``concerning, but not a crisis.'' 
     Still, he says it's a ``big risk'' to plan on borrowing so 
     much in the coming years.
       Trump's Treasury forecasts borrowing more than $1 trillion 
     in 2019 and more than $1.1 trillion in 2020. Before taking 
     office, Trump described himself as the ``king of debt,'' 
     although he campaigned on reducing the national debt.
       The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget predicts the 
     U.S. deficit will hit $1 trillion by 2019 and stay there for 
     a while. The latest borrowing figure--$955 billion--released 
     this week was determined from a survey of bond market 
     participants, who tend to be even faster to react to the 
     changing policy landscape and change their forecasts.
       Both parties claim they want to be ``fiscally 
     responsible,'' but Goldwein says they both pass legislation 
     that adds to the debt.

[[Page H824]]

     Politicians argue this is the last time they'll pass a bill 
     that makes the deficit worse, but so far, they just keep 
     going.
       The latest example of largesse is the GOP tax bill. It's 
     expected to add $1 trillion or more to the debt, according to 
     nonpartisan analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation 
     (and yes, that's after accounting for some increased economic 
     growth).
       But even before that, Goldwein points to the 2015 extension 
     of many tax cuts and the 2014 delays in Medicare 
     reimbursement cuts.
       ``Every time you feed your addiction, you grow your 
     addiction,'' says Goldwein.
       There doesn't seem to be any appetite for budgetary 
     restraint in Washington, but the market may force Congress's 
     hand.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we did hear in the State of the Union 
that we will be asking for $1.5 trillion for infrastructure. Given the 
$1.5 trillion that we have already started borrowing for to give the 
top 1 percent a great tax cut that would be permanent, I am not sure 
anybody will finance that request. And, frankly, taking on that amount 
of debt would mean that almost everything else that we do in the 
country would take a back seat, or even further behind than back.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge, also, Mr. Stewart's service 
to the United States Air Force and this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to talk with a security officer 
from Pearl Harbor, Lieutenant Kevin Fahland. Lieutenant Fahland 
essentially told me: We are out in the middle of the Pacific faced with 
danger every day, and we represent the greatest Nation in the history 
of the world. Please do us a favor and recognize that we need the 
funding to continue what is an aggressive race against us.
  He is a lieutenant in the Navy, a security officer, who sees 
firsthand the attack, all sorts of ways, at Pearl Harbor that happens 
every day, and it is his job to protect this great Nation. I want to 
thank the lieutenant and other members of the United States Navy and 
the United States military for their service.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess) from the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, we are here today considering a continuing 
resolution that will provide dollars for the Federal Government and our 
national defense, but it also will finally accomplish reauthorization 
of funding for several important healthcare programs. These extensions 
are long overdue, and I urge Members to support this legislation so 
that our Nation's healthcare providers will have stability to continue 
their normal operations.
  The House passed many of these provisions last November. That is when 
we passed the Championing Healthy Kids Act. However, since House 
passage, the legislation has been stalled without action in the Senate. 
Fortunately, the Children's Health Insurance Program was reauthorized 
in the last continuing resolution. It seems like a long time ago, but 
it was only 3 weeks ago. However, we did not complete the public health 
or Medicare extenders. The continuing resolution that we are debating 
today includes funding for other important healthcare programs, such as 
community health centers, the National Health Service Corps, and 
Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education, all of which expired 
at the end of September.

                              {time}  1530

  The continuing resolution provides a 2-year extension of funding for 
federally qualified health centers. One in 13 individuals nationwide 
relies upon a community health center to receive necessary healthcare 
services. The Community Health Center Fund plays an important role in 
supplementing the services that the federally qualified health centers 
are able to deliver to underserved communities by providing care to all 
Americans, regardless of their income or their ability to pay.
  The legislation we are considering also includes a 2-year extension 
of other important public health programs, including funding for the 
National Health Service Corps, the Family-to-Family Information 
Centers, the Personal Responsibility Education Program, the Special 
Diabetes Program for Type 1 Diabetes, and the Special Diabetes Program 
for American Indians.
  The package also delays the $5 billion in cuts to many hospitals in 
many of our districts across the country from the Affordable Care Act-
mandated Medicaid disproportionate share hospital reductions for the 
fiscal years 2018 and 2019. I am certain that other Members have heard 
from their hospitals, as have I; hospitals in our districts whose 
ability to remain open and operational and continue to provide care 
could be jeopardized by these cuts in the so-called DSH payments.
  This delays but does not fix a problem that ObamaCare created for 
safety net hospitals that provide care to citizens of our country who 
most need this care. The committee is committed to continuing to work 
on this, but this 2-year extension is important.
  The bill also includes important Medicare extenders. The extension of 
the ground ambulance services and cost reporting requirements will 
allow our emergency responders in urban, rural, and superrural areas 
another 5 years of certainty in receiving their add-on payments.
  Similarly, home health providers will receive a 5-year extension of 
their rural add-on Medicare payments, and certain low-volume hospitals 
will continue to receive the payment adjustment for an additional 2 
years.
  This health extenders package permanently repeals a provision in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. This provision sought to cap Medicare-
covered outpatient therapy services, physical therapy, occupational 
therapy, and speech-language pathology. The cap was never fully put 
into effect, but repealing the therapy caps will allow for certainty 
and stability for Medicare beneficiaries and providers of these 
services. Many of us have heard about the importance of repealing the 
cap.
  One of my priorities as chairman of the Health Subcommittee has been 
to improve the value of our electronic health records for doctors and 
for patients. Electronic health records have promise to streamline the 
sharing of data amongst patients and their doctors, but they have not 
yet fully lived up to this promise.
  Adoption of electronic health records is growing, but the meaningful 
use program, as established in the Health Information Technology for 
Economic and Clinical Health Act, has burdened providers with stringent 
requirements. In an effort to reduce that burden, this bill we are 
considering today removes the mandate that the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services make the meaningful use standards more stringent over 
time.
  I believe we have squeezed all the blood we can out of this turnip, 
and it is time to let our doctors be doctors. This will permit the 
Department to evaluate in other ways.
  Lastly, this package contains important provisions that aim to 
improve care for individuals suffering from chronic diseases. The 
Senate has already passed these provisions in their CHRONIC Care Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. One of the most important pieces of this package is the 
extension of the Independence At Home Medical Practice Demonstration 
Program, which allows participating high-need Medicare beneficiaries 
who have multiple chronic conditions to receive Medicare coverage for 
home-based primary care. This program is currently in its fifth year 
and has been found to save Medicare dollars, but Medicare needs more 
time to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the program.
  This health extenders package has responsible offsets. One of these 
offsets would allow for Medicare reimbursement of outpatient physical 
therapy or occupational therapy services provided by a therapy 
assistant. These providers are reimbursed at 85 percent of the 
physician rate, and therapy assistants must have a State license and 
abide by Medicare supervision requirements.
  Additionally, lottery winnings and other lump sum income of over 
$80,000 would count toward income eligibility under Medicaid's modified 
adjusted gross income rules. In certain cases, individuals could remain 
eligible if being ineligible would lead to undue medical or financial 
hardship.
  Similar to the Championing Healthy Kids Act, this bill modifies the 
level of funding in the Prevention and Public

[[Page H825]]

Health Fund. By law, this fund is required to receive $2.5 billion in 
annual appropriations, which must be used for prevention, wellness, and 
public health initiatives administered by the Department of Health and 
Human Services.
  If Congress does not direct the funds toward specific efforts, the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to spend the 
dollars however he or she deems fit. While we are redirecting these 
taxpayer dollars, the overarching purpose of the fund is still there to 
improve the health and wellness of Americans through existing 
mechanisms, and community health centers will do just that. With this 
spending offset, we are using the Prevention and Public Health Fund for 
what is intended: investing in America's well-being.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This 
bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help hundreds of thousands of 
young people who are American in every way except on paper.

  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 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) to discuss our proposal.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, DREAMers embody our American ideals, 
our values, and everything we hold dear. They are proud servicemembers, 
students, teachers, healthcare workers, first responders, and 
entrepreneurs.
  The DACA program has allowed many of them to build a life here and 
make positive, significant contributions to the U.S. economy and their 
communities. DACA recipients, in fact, earn higher wages and will 
contribute an estimated $460 billion to the U.S. GDP over the next 
decade. It is no wonder employers and corporate America are demanding a 
solution.
  The economic case for passing the Dream Act is strong. It is not just 
the right thing to do for our economy, though; it is the right thing to 
do, period.
  H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, builds on these great successes and honors 
our history and our heritage, as we are a proud nation of immigrants 
from all over the world.
  Poll after poll reflects overwhelming support for allowing the 
DREAMers to remain permanently in the United States. Nearly 8 out of 10 
voters, including almost three-quarters of Trump voters, agree on this. 
Only 14 percent believe they should be forced to leave.
  The faith community is also imploring Congress to do what is the 
right, compassionate, and just thing. Just this morning, I met with the 
Archdiocese of Los Angeles, who said this is about human dignity and 
how we treat people. They understand the weight of our inaction and 
indecisiveness. Anxiety and hopelessness continue to grow as the 
President dithers.
  We are now less than 1 month away from the end of the 6-month period 
set by President Trump to fix the mess he created. No more delaying. No 
more inaction. DREAMers kept their promise to the only Nation they know 
and love. Our government must honor its commitment to protect them and 
their families.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the 20th time we have asked for a vote on the 
clean Dream Act. All we are asking for is a vote. Give us a vote so we 
can give young immigrants, their families, their employers, their 
teachers, their coworkers, and friends some certainty and peace of 
mind.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we 
can immediately bring DREAMers and the Dream Act to the floor and 
finally do what is right for our young people and for our country.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is amazing how the President, by honing the message and focusing 
his ideas on Congress, has brought this entire issue to a forefront.
  Last year, the President said: I am calling on Congress to please 
resolve this issue with the DACA people who are in this country. I am 
asking Congress to please do this by next March.
  Now he is being treated--instead of like a firefighter, he is being 
treated like an arsonist; and he is not. He is the person who has the 
ability and the desire to lead Congress, on a bipartisan basis; lots of 
meetings down at the White House. For months now that has been 
happening, with the date of March.
  What happens?
  Somebody gets frustrated and they want not what we agreed to do in 
March, but they want it in January--actually, December, rather than 
attempting to work with the President, who, I believe, forthrightly, 
has held lots of meetings.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what I would say to you is that it is a moving 
target. There is never something that this President can do that will 
satisfy our colleagues on the other side. If it is not DACA, it is 
going to be the caps issue. If it is not the caps issue, it is going to 
be the military issue. If it is not the military issue, it is going to 
be Children's Health Insurance Program.
  Mr. Speaker, we are addressing those. We are trying to bring those 
issues professionally, on a bipartisan basis. Just a week ago--10 days 
ago, we respectfully did not include yearlong funding for the United 
States military.
  What did we hear back over and over and over from the other body?
  They said: Well, I would have voted for this bill, but the funding 
for the military is not in there for a 1-year basis for the remainder 
of the year.
  So that is what we have done. We are trying to bring forth ideas of 
agreement that say we need to find a deal. We need to come to an 
agreement. We recognize this is not the last funding agreement for the 
year, but what we are trying to do is to avoid a government shutdown. 
The way you do that is by voting ``yes,'' and that is what we are 
asking people to do today.
  That is why we had Dr. Burgess. That is why we had Major Chris 
Stewart, the United States Congressman from Utah. That is also why we 
have the gentleman from Waterford Township, Michigan, here, a member of 
the Republican leadership, a bright, young, thoughtful, articulate man.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Mitchell).
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I think everyone can agree here that 
continuing resolutions--CRs--are bad policy.
  For the folks in the gallery, it is simple. CRs are whether we keep 
the lights on or not. They are whether you can call Social Security and 
get assistance. They are whether you can figure out what is going on 
with your taxes, call the IRS. They are whether or not we actually 
function.
  Yes, it is going to be our fifth CR. Shame on all of us, and I do 
mean all of us.
  However, the people on the other side of the aisle, they talk about 
all their legislative agenda they want put in the package and passed or 
they are going to vote against keeping the lights on. Think about that.
  They say: If we don't get DACA, we are shutting the lights off. If we 
don't get this, we will shut the lights off.
  That is what happened in the Senate the last shutdown.
  They say: If we don't get full-year funding for the military, we are 
shutting the lights off. If we don't get DACA, we are shutting the 
lights off. If we don't get permanent funding for CHIP, we are shutting 
the lights off.
  It didn't work out very well, did it?
  Our fundamental responsibility is to keep the lights on. There is 
nothing in this bill that is objectionable. In fact, they have all 
passed. This bill supports full-year funding for the Department of 
Defense appropriations. This isn't the first time we passed the 
appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. We have passed it 
three times. And we sent it to the Senate to die a cruel and horrible 
death.
  Why?
  Not because, as was noted by my colleague, that we can't get 51 
votes.
  We can't get 60 votes.
  And where do those votes come from?
  On the other side of the aisle, who will do anything to get their 
agenda,

[[Page H826]]

including putting our military at risk. People die when we make those 
decisions, and they have.

                              {time}  1545

  The funding is fully consistent with the NDAA, National Defense 
Authorization Act, something that was a bipartisan vote. It provides a 
2.4 percent increase to the men and women in the military who put their 
lives on the line for our Nation, well deserved, something we also 
voted for and supported.
  The bill provides full extensions for popular health programs that, 
in fact, both sides of the aisle supported, a 2-year extension of 
community health centers.
  In Michigan, federally qualified health centers serve nearly 650,000 
individuals. There are 11 health centers located in my congressional 
district. They need the funding. That is why I support it. In all of 
your districts, you have community health centers.
  But you will argue: Unless we get DACA, we won't fund the military; 
we won't fund the health centers. This bill also extends Medicare 
policies, providing options for people receiving home care. Again, it 
was a bipartisan vote, but now we don't want to support it.
  I believe we shouldn't continue the habit of short-term spending 
bills. They are offensive to me; they truly are. We passed, in 
September, in this House, all 12 appropriations bills and sent them to 
the Senate. My suggestion to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle is, rather than lecture us about math--I can count to 60. I can 
get between 51 and 60. I suggest you make a phone call to some of your 
colleagues in the Senate and tell them to do their job and bring up the 
appropriations bills. If they don't like what they are, amend them, go 
to conference, rather than just obstruct the functioning of our 
government.
  The most fundamental responsibility we have is to keep the lights on, 
is to defend this Nation. If we are not doing that, I have to wonder 
what we are doing for a job.
  So I suggest we pass this bill here, we send it to the Senate. And 
may I suggest that someone on the other side of the aisle make a phone 
call and ask if they want to see how Schumer shutdown part 2 goes--
their choice.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bergman). Members are reminded to 
refrain from referring to occupants in the gallery and also reminded to 
direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I 
would not come to the floor if I were in the majority and lecture the 
minority when the majority runs the House, the Senate, and the White 
House and accuse us of shutting down the House or not producing the 
votes. We don't have enough votes in the first place. That is why we 
are the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and 
Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it was all only a dream, a dream that 
Speaker Ryan would permit this House to work its will and have a vote 
to secure the future of our DREAMers, America DREAMers, who Trump one 
day condemns as ``illegal,'' then says he ``loves,'' and then goes off 
on some racist rant.
  Congress, in fact, has been hijacked by 28 percent of the Members who 
sit here. Applying the rule that the only thing this House can vote on 
is whatever a majority of the majority want us to vote on and blocking 
everything else is what creates the problem that we face today. A 
minority of this House can say we will not ever get to vote on the 
DREAMers or any other number of other issues under the procedures that 
are being applied here. And even if 72 percent of this body want to 
seek a bipartisan resolution to a matter, we cannot do it under the 
rules that are being applied.
  So what has happened since the Trump shutdown three weeks ago? What 
has been done to secure the future of our DREAMers? What has been done 
to fulfill the promise that was made of action on our DREAMers? 
Absolutely nothing, zero, zilch--nothing to resolve this problem, and 
not even the prospect of action here in the House.
  Last week I met again with DREAMers in Texas: a county prosecutor who 
enforces our local and state laws, a teacher, a nurse, students--
powerful, emotional stories that they tell--and their employers who are 
uncertain about their ability to continue providing the services that 
they provide.
  Just as Congress has been hijacked by a few Republican extremists, 
these DREAMers have been hijacked, and the only question is: What is 
the price to solve their problem, our problem?
  That price grows by the day. The ransom that is being demanded day-
by-day goes up a little bit higher amidst all of the anti-immigrant 
hysteria. It is not difficult to resolve this issue. It could have been 
resolved before President Trump ever issued his ill-begotten 
proclamation in September.
  And since I represent a city that is proud to call itself ``Military 
City,'' San Antonio, Texas, I find particularly obnoxious the attempt 
to pit the security of our DREAMers against the security of our 
country. It ignores, for example, the fact that a number of DREAMers 
are putting their lives on the line for us in the United States 
military.
  And what could be more harmful to taxpayers and the future of our 
country than to continue to budget week-by-week, month-by-month? Of 
course, I am impressed by the number of Republicans who get up here and 
tell us: Oh, we just hate these continuing resolutions.
  Well, if they hate them, why do they keep doing them? We are on 
number five.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, what we have is an incredible amount of 
bungling, no fiscal responsibility in doing this week by week, month by 
month. And the discussion of there being a government shutdown, turning 
the lights out, well, the only person who has called for a government 
shutdown was Donald Trump back in May, and then he reiterated his call 
this afternoon for a government shutdown.
  I think he and the Republican intransigents, the ability to block 
votes here in the House by a minority--28 percent, almost one-fourth of 
the people who are here to block a vote--is what led to the last Trump 
shutdown.
  And by casting our vote ``no'' today, it is not only about the 
DREAMers, but it is the only way that we who do not have a majority can 
speak out and say that this fiscal mismanagement has to stop once and 
for all. We are tired of taxpayers being charged more money for all 
kinds of services and products the government procures just because 
this problem is not solved.
  Fulfill the dream. Fulfill responsibility for the taxpayers. Vote 
against this resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, a year or so ago, I received a rather urgent phone call 
from Dr. Shelley Hall from Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas 
and Dr. Rick Snyder from Medical City in Dallas, which are hospitals, 
and they spoke with me about a change in the law some year and some ago 
that would change infusion therapy.
  What is infusion therapy? It involves administering medication 
through a needle or a catheter, which is prescribed when a patient's 
condition is so severe that it cannot be treated effectively by oral 
medications, meaning, through this needle or the opportunity for a 
catheter. What happened was there was a change in the law that did not 
fully fund this effort.
  ``Home infusion'' means, instead of having to receive this in the 
hospital, which is more expensive, they would be able to do this at 
home, and the doctor would manage that. As a result of the change in 
some law and funding levels, that stopped the patients from being able 
to do this at home.
  I want to congratulate Kevin Brady, the chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee, for working not only with these doctors, but also with 
me on this insistence that we go and review this,

[[Page H827]]

an opportunity for more effective healthcare and cost effective from 
the perspective of not only the patient, but also to make sure that 
physicians would stay involved in the health of their patients.
  I would like to thank Dr. Shelley Hall of Baylor University Medical 
Center and Dr. Rick Snyder, both from Dallas, Texas, for working with 
me to make sure that this change happened today.
  This is one of the pages of the changes that we are making today, to 
go in and offer some corrections and to update and extend the 
privileges that we have in this country to have the greatest healthcare 
system in the world.
  I want to thank Chairman Brady for his work, and his staff, to make 
sure this was involved in this change today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I associate myself, and I think it is important for my 
colleagues and the American people to know, that this body, this 
government, this Congress, is controlled by one party: the Presidency, 
the House, and the Senate. Just a few minutes ago, the President of the 
United States called for a shutdown. I am shocked. I am not calling for 
anything but relief.
  I am delighted that the gentleman from Dallas was able to craft a 
support system for infusion therapy, but it goes to show you who 
controls this place. I don't know what Democrat could get any additions 
to this particular CR. It is not an appropriation. It is not an 
authorization bill.
  I am just on the floor begging for what my colleagues, both 
Republicans and Democrats from Texas, have been asking for but my 
Republican House has not been able to produce, or the Senate. When I 
say that, we have not been able to produce a disaster supplemental bill 
that is going to respond to the needs of those who are still suffering.
  Harris County covers 1,778 square miles. It can fit New York City, 
Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Austin, and Dallas, with room 
still to spare; 41,500 square miles of land mass impacted by Hurricane 
Harvey and the subsequent flooding that covered an area larger than the 
States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and 
Vermont, combined. This is not puffery. It is to show you the depth of 
devastation.
  Hurricane Harvey dropped 21 trillion gallons of water on Texas and 
Louisiana, most of it on the Houston metroplex. 51.88 inches of rain 
fell near Cedar Bayou, and at the peak, on September 1, one-third of 
Houston was underwater.
  Our headlines: Hurricane Harvey Recovery Goes Ignored in Washington 
Yet Again; Republicans Controlling Every Phase of Government; After 
Harvey, Houstonians Eye Long Road to Recovery; After Harvey, 
Houstonians Have Long Road; Houses Down on the Ground; Long Road to 
Recovery; Senior Citizens Suffering; Suffering from Health Conditions.
  And you can see, here is the basic point: There is no reason why 
Republicans joining with Democrats cannot, one, have an $81 billion 
supplemental that goes up. It is not enough. But it is the 
administration that has cut into our very life by giving us a skinny 
disaster aid supplemental. I am looking for the Senate to plus it up 
because this is not enough.
  In this bill, if you want to know why we are voting ``no,'' it 
doesn't exist. Where is the disaster emergency supplemental money that 
is needed?

  I left my office with six members of local officials in my office. 
They were telling me about the depression of so many in Texas who do 
not have the resources. They don't have the housing money. The 
infrastructure money has not come. Mold is there. They have bad health.
  And these are examples of their situation. This is what the rescues 
look like. This is, of course, what the water looked like. And this 
gentleman was walking in the water.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is a house that is evidenced by those impacted 
by the hurricane. This is a house of someone who is still waiting for 
that house to be rebuilt.
  Finally, the city council, wanting to be responsive--and I thank 
them--has lifted the permitting to allow trailers. Our people are 
begging now for trailers. Most people don't beg for trailers. We are 
begging for trailers in urban Houston because people have nowhere to 
live.
  This is a disgrace. I am not making this personal, but we flooded on 
August 27. It is now, today, February 6. There is no reason why this 
Republican administration has not been able to work. And all these 
additional addendums on this CR should have been done in a bipartisan 
effort.
  We support infusion therapy. We support federally qualified health 
clinics. But you are taking money from prevention. We support CHIP, but 
you are taking money from prevention and other things. This is not the 
way to do, one, spending; it is not the way to provide for national 
security; it is not the way to provide for the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the Department of State, Department of Justice, law 
enforcement. We are not doing any of that.

                              {time}  1600

  And then there are 140,000 DREAMers in my State. Some of them are 
impacted by Hurricane Harvey. And let me make mention of the Virgin 
Islands, Puerto Rico, Florida, and California. I am not in any way 
diminishing their pain. They are likewise suffering.
  So if the American people want to know what the ``noes'' are about, 
the ``noes'' are because those who are in charge are not doing 
anything.
  By the way, DREAMers are part of those who sought to rescue many who 
were stranded in Houston. We lost a DREAMer who traveled all the way 
from Dallas to provide rescue and he died. He died because he loved 
this country. He died because he loved his neighbors.
  Yet we cannot get that fixed, but we cannot help our neighbors get 
the dollars that they need. If you want to know why there is a ``no'' 
vote, it is because it is long overdue for our friends to do the real 
work that needs to be done, and to do disaster supplemental funding and 
do it right.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two articles from the Houston 
Chronicle.

              [From the Houston Chronicle, Oct. 26, 2017]

Houston ISD Schools With Most Displaced Students After Hurricane Harvey

                            (By Shelby Webb)

       More than 1300 Houston ISD students are displaced or 
     homeless after Hurricane Harvey, according to records the 
     district submitted to the Texas Education Agency.
       That number is likely to change after the TEA changed how 
     districts should categorize displaced students and as Houston 
     ISD shores up its own internal estimates. But initial data 
     shows four of the 10 schools with the largest numbers of 
     displaced students are located in Southwest Houston, three in 
     Meyerland alone.
       Two magnet schools--Carnegie Vanguard High School and Lamar 
     High School--also saw large numbers of their students 
     affected by Harvey's floods.
       Houston ISD Superintendent Richard Carranza required that 
     all teachers go through crisis and trauma training during the 
     first semester of the year to better help students who are 
     dealing with Harvey-related fears and losses.
       Across the Houston area, more than 10,700 students have 
     been displaced by Hurricane Harvey, according to data 
     reported to the TEA and given to the Chronicle by 16 local 
     school districts. But that number does not include estimates 
     for how many students are displaced in some of the area's 
     largest school districts, including the Cypress-Fairbanks, 
     Spring and Pearland ISDs.
       Katy ISD had the most students affected by the storm with 
     2,862. Tiny Stafford MSD had the least, with 32 students 
     displaced by the storm.
                                  ____


               [From the Houston Chronicle, Dec. 6, 2017]

           Top Health Official Views Harvey Recovery Efforts

                          (By Mike Hixenbaugh)

       Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, the head of the federal Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, spent most of the day 
     receiving briefings from officials at Harris County Public 
     Health, which has been on the front lines helping residents 
     cope following the historic flooding.
       Later, Fitzgerald visited a mobile wellness unit in Galena 
     Park, where county health

[[Page H828]]

     workers provided residents of the flood-ravaged community in 
     southeast Harris County with free immunizations, cleaning 
     supplies, bug spray, canned food and other services.
       Now Playing: Level of help to expect for Harvey flood 
     recovery
       Harris County dispatched the mobile health units to more 3o 
     locations in the weeks following the hurricane, part of a 
     broader effort to help residents care for themselves in the 
     midst of the devastation. Fitzgerald said she's been 
     monitoring the county's efforts closely and wanted to see 
     them firsthand.
       ``I wanted to come and see how it's going,'' Fitzgerald 
     said, ``and also to see what else we can do to make sure 
     Houston recovers totally.''
       Although Harvey's true toll on public health is still being 
     calculated, Fitzgerald said the CDC is committed to providing 
     Texas with whatever resources are needed to grapple with the 
     aftermath.
       The visit comes days after the Kaiser Family Foundation 
     released a sweeping survey that found 17 percent of those who 
     had houses damaged or suffered income loss reported that 
     someone in their household has developed a new or worsening 
     health condition.
       Chronic respiratory ailments resulting from mold and 
     stress-related mental health struggles are of particular 
     concern after flooding, health officials said, as well as the 
     threat of mosquito-borne illnesses and other infectious 
     diseases.
       Fitzgerald said she was impressed by the resiliency of 
     residents and public health workers she met, some of whom 
     manned mobile health clinics just days after losing their 
     homes to flooding.
       ``The work goes on,'' Fitzgerald said.

  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to Rules Committee Print 
115-58, legislation extending the Continuing Resolution now in effect 
for an additional five weeks, or until March 23, 2018.
  But before I proceed further, I want to note--and Americans needs to 
know--that this is not a spending bill; it is instead an affirmation of 
the House Republicans' inability to govern.
  This is the fifth time House Republicans have chosen to kick the can 
down the road rather than work with Democrats to come to a necessary 
bipartisan agreement to lift the Budget Control Act (BCA) spending 
caps, giving appropriators the direction they need for full-year 
funding bills.
  The reason given for passing each of the prior Continuing Resolutions 
was that the extra time was needed to reach a comprehensive agreement 
to fund government operations in a fair and balanced way.
  Yet, even with the extra time, House Republicans made no progress 
during any of the previous extensions.
  This should not be surprising; the House GOP is carrying the water 
for the president, who a few months ago said ``we need a big beautiful 
shutdown.''
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a CR that does not include full funding 
for disaster recovery, extends additional health access for veterans, 
provides funding to combat the opioid epidemic, and protects pensions.
  Most important, it is outrageous that House Republicans would bring 
to the floor and request support for a fifth CR extension that does not 
address and resolve the crisis the Republican Administration has 
inflicted on 800,000 Dreamers and their families, including 124,000 
Dreamers in my home state of Texas.
  Instead of acting responsibly to address these issues and fund the 
government for the remainder of the fiscal year, House Republicans 
continue wasting time.
  This is not appropriations; this is a stop-gap funding measure to 
save ourselves from collapse.
  Although the funding bill before us makes a feeble attempt to address 
numerous expired or expiring health priorities, it fails to reauthorize 
several key programs including the Maternal Infant and Early Childhood 
Home Visiting (MIECHV) and Health Professional Opportunity Grant (HPOG) 
programs.
  Just as bad, this legislation is paid for the package with partisan 
offsets, such as cuts to the Prevention and Public Health Fund before 
ending the Prevention and Public Health Fund in 2027.
  Mr. Speaker, another reason that this bill should be passed in its 
present form is that it includes the same Department of Defense 
appropriations bill that the House passed on January 30, 2018, which 
increases defense spending by $73 billion more than the $549 billion 
allowed under the current BCA defense cap and provides $75 billion in 
additional discretionary funding designated for Overseas Contingency 
Operations (OCO).
  As a consequence, if this bill becomes law it would eliminate any 
chance for a bipartisan budget cap agreement for this year.
  For months, Democrats have sought an agreement on the discretionary 
spending caps that provides parity for both defense and non-defense 
appropriations bills, both of which are critical to our nation's 
security.
  Rather than negotiate a cap agreement that would pave the way for a 
defense appropriations bill to become law, Republicans are placing a 
bill on the floor that will exempt itself from the BCA defense cap's 
sequestration.
  This bill is the fifth example of Republicans rejecting bipartisan 
compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, despite controlling the House, Senate, and the White 
House, Republicans have not funded the government for the entire year, 
even though we are already four months into the fiscal year.
  Democrats, meanwhile, have done the work with which we were tasked.
  I am a member of the Budget committee and we Democrats proposed a 
budget that:
  1. Respected the needs of all Americans, including those who serve 
bravely in the Department of Defense;
  2. Honored the sacrifice of our heroes in uniform;
  3. Protected programs like CHIP, made investments in infrastructure 
and ensured that Americans have access to quality healthcare.
  Because Republicans refuse to work with Democrats and compromise on 
how to provide relief from the BCA's sequester level spending caps, 
they are lurching from CR to CR--degrading the readiness of our 
military and preventing government agencies from properly serving the 
American people.
  This is not a responsible way to govern; therefore, I cannot support 
this bill, especially when there still remains millions of Americans 
still coping with the devastating effects of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, 
and Maria in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
and wildfires in California.
  The nine-county Houston metro area impacted by Hurricane Harvey 
covers 9,444 square miles, an area larger than five states, including 
New Hampshire, New Jersey and Connecticut.
  Harris County covers 1,778 square miles, enough space to fit New York 
City, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Seattle, Austin and Dallas, with 
room still to spare.
  There was over 41,500 square miles of land mass impacted by Hurricane 
Harvey and the subsequent flooding that covered an area larger than the 
States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and 
Vermont combined.
  Hurricane Harvey dropped 21 trillion gallons of water on Texas and 
Louisiana, most of it on the Houston Metroplex and the 51.88 inches of 
rain that fell near Cedar Bayou is the highest total ever recorded for 
a single U.S. weather event.
  At its peak on September 1, 2017, one-third of Houston was 
underwater.
  At the peak on August 31, there were 34,575 evacuees in shelters 
across Texas.
  Hurricane Harvey is the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. 
in our nation's history.
  Hurricane Harvey damaged 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were 
destroyed.
  Mr. Speaker, people are living in homes with mold.
  As recently as this past November, nearly 19,000 hotel rooms in over 
1,500 hotels were still occupied by persons displaced by Hurricane 
Harvey.
  Thousands of others with severe damage to their homes are living with 
family or friends.
  889,425 people have registered for assistance with the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
  As of December 5, 2017, more than 632,000 individuals or households 
in metro Houston had submitted valid registrations for FEMA's 
Individual and Households Program (IHP) and 249,259 registrations were 
approved for $1.0 billion in assistance.
  And because of Republican unwillingness to compromise or govern 
competently, disaster victims in my congressional district and all 
across the affected areas are still waiting for the disaster funding 
assistance they desperately need.
  House Republicans need to work across the aisle with Democrats and 
get our work done--including. upholding the long-standing precedent of 
agreeing to parity when providing relief from sequester caps.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's advocacy because, in many respects, I 
feel the same way. But I would offer, in speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, 
that you made sure this House passed the $81 billion spending bill on 
October 12 last year. The House of Representatives, through the 
leadership of not only Speaker Ryan, but also the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) were tasked with the duty of making sure 
that we would take feedback from States, from cities, and came up with 
a figure of $81 billion. That is not in any way not living up to our 
responsibility, Mr. Speaker.
  We are the ones who did this--this whole body. It is stuck in the 
United States Senate, and the President and this administration have 
not been authorized to spend more than what has been appropriated.

[[Page H829]]

  

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. The gentleman, we have worked together.
  Mr. SESSIONS. And continue to right now.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think the important point is that this has to be a collective 
effort of the administration and the bodies of the House and the 
Senate. The only point that I would make is that the administration has 
not sent forward--yes, the $81 billion--but we are not moving it in the 
Senate.
  The administration has not been engaged actively to say that they 
want to help the people who are impacted, and they have a skinny impact 
or skinny impression of what we need of $81 billion for all of the 
disaster areas.
  And, of course, Mr. Sessions, my good friend, understands that $1 
trillion tax cut does not help us in getting the increased disaster 
money.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time because the gentlewoman 
is going to switch subjects.
  I would tell the gentlewoman that the House, respectfully, before we 
got to any tax cut bill, made sure that we did a constitutionally 
responsible thing, and that was to make sure that we measured three 
times, sawed once, came up with the $81 billion. It is, in my opinion, 
something that the United States Senate needs to solve.
  I would also add that I don't know what the Democratic Party is doing 
over there to push this issue. I think it needs to be an important 
attribute. But we are waiting for the Senate, Mr. Speaker. And for us 
to blame both houses, I think, is not fair to the leadership that Paul 
Ryan has provided, to the leadership that Rodney Frelinghuysen has 
contributed to this effort, and most of all, Mr. Speaker, to the people 
who voted for the bill in the House. They did the responsible action. 
And I think that if we are going to do anything, we need to look to the 
United States Senate, which is constitutionally required.
  President Trump and Vice President Pence not only visited the ravaged 
areas, but they tried to provide the leadership. But it is up to the 
constitutional provisions of the United States Senate, and that is 
where the problem lies.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard the majority speak with great urgency today 
about the need to pass the continuing resolution. But where was this 
urgency from the majority for the last 5 months of this fiscal year?
  They were so consumed with providing tax breaks to the wealthy and 
corporations that they ignored virtually everything else.
  This was a bill that was sold as a middle class tax cut. But 83 
percent of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent; and for 
corporations, the tax breaks are permanent. For individuals, they are 
sunsetted.
  Speaker Ryan, over the weekend, promoted the fact that a secretary in 
Pennsylvania received an extra $1.50 a week under the tax scam. That is 
$78 a year for her. You can see what the middle class actually got.
  But compare that with the wealthy. One analysis found that the Koch 
brothers and their corporate empire could save between $1 billion and 
$1.4 billion combined in income taxes every year as a result of the tax 
law. It is important to remember that this is a permanent cut.
  It was a bill written for the rich to help the rich. It spends money 
we don't have, while adding $1.5 trillion to the deficit. That is such 
a staggering amount that the Congressional Budget Office said last week 
that because of this tax bill, our government now is expected to run 
out of money sooner than anticipated.
  The deadline to raise the debt ceiling has now been moved from early 
April to mid-March. Only during the Second World War was our debt as a 
percentage of gross domestic product higher than it is today. I hope we 
can forever end the myth that the majority is the party of fiscal 
discipline. The situation we are in today is a direct result of the 
majority prioritizing the wealthy over doing the most basic functions 
of keeping the government running.
  And now, after ignoring Democrats as this bill was drafted, they 
expect us to fall in line and support a flawed proposal. That is not 
how it works. If they want our support, they need to work with us. And 
Democrats have been clear: We cannot afford to keep kicking the can 
down the road. It is past time for a long-term bill that addresses 
urgent national priorities.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the 
rule, and the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman, my dear friend from Rochester, New York, not 
only for her working together, but for her long hours that are a 
requirement of being on the Rules Committee; for her leadership not 
only of her team, but each of the individuals who represent not only 
her team, but, really, Members of Congress, and the collegial activity 
that she brings to the table. I thank the gentlewoman very much for 
that.

  Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation to ensure our Nation's servicemen 
and -women are adequately trained for missions and to support this 
great Nation. We have talked about several members of the military 
today. My son is at Pearl Harbor also and is on duty as we speak today. 
He is proud of his service to the United States Navy.
  There are proud parents all over the country, patriots, veterans, 
people who deeply believe in our military. We have got to get this 
funding done. That is what we are doing here today.
  This rule and the underlying legislation provides funding for the 
Federal Government and fully funds our Nation's military. But I will 
tell you that the discussions we have had here today are similar to 
what we had at the Rules Committee.
  The gentlewoman gave us credit. The Republican Party is the party of 
fiscal responsibility. But also, I would say to you, we are trying to 
do the right thing across the board, not just what we do today. But 
what we are faced with is similar to a changing viewpoint about how 
someone justifies a ``no'' vote; a ``no'' vote that they know means 
that while they are for something, they can't vote for it because of an 
issue.
  Just an hour ago at the Rules Committee, we had a Democratic Member 
who came and wanted more money for a specific project. And I asked that 
Member how much money were we going to spend in the budget this year. 
They didn't know. I asked: How much do you want to add to that?
  They said: Well, I don't know.
  It is a continuing drumbeat that we, as Republicans, are puzzled by. 
And that is: Why do we fund the government fully for the entire year?
  Let's know how much we have agreed to, and then let's make a 
determination if we are not meeting the needs.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress must ask the tough questions, but this 
Congress must be up to tough decisionmaking also. I was sent to 
Congress to make tough decisions, not just popular decisions. So I 
think I would recalculate each of us today and say the bill that we 
have on the floor today and the rule are designed to fund the 
government for the remainder of the fiscal year.
  We would ask that all Members really look deep within them and let's 
end this mess that we are in. Let's fund this effort and let's look to 
March 23, when we can finalize all that we have done.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules filed its 
report (H. Rept. 115-547) to accompany House Resolution 727) the 
Committee was unaware that the waiver of all points of order against 
consideration of the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 
1892 included:
  A waiver of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, which 
prohibits consideration of legislation providing new budget authority 
in excess of a 302(a) allocation of such authority.
  A waiver of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, which 
prohibits consideration of legislation that would cause the level

[[Page H830]]

of total new budget authority for the first fiscal year to be exceeded, 
or would cause revenues to be less than the level of total revenues for 
the first fiscal year or for the total of that first fiscal year and 
the ensuing fiscal years for which allocations are provided.
  A waiver of clause 10 of rule XXI, which prohibits the consideration 
of a bill if it has the net effect of increasing mandatory spending 
over the five-year or ten-year period.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 727 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment 
     of status of certain individuals who are long-term United 
     States residents and who entered the United States as 
     children and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3440.

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . . . [and] has 
     no substantive legislative or policy implications 
     whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. 
     Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative 
     Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th 
     edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the 
     previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is 
     generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority 
     Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . . . When 
     the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of 
     the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to 
     ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then 
     controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or 
     yield for the purpose of amendment.''
       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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________