[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 25 (Thursday, February 8, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H996-H1002]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO 
      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 734 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 734

       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 to the House amendment to 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 to the House 
     amendment to the Senate amendment. 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 adoption without intervening motion.

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


                             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 in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
1892, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.
  Mr. Speaker, this 2-year budget agreement begins to repair our 
military and frees our armed services from the harmful spending caps 
and the devastating practice of funding our troops with stopgap 
spending bills. It raises defense discretionary spending levels in 
fiscal year 2018 by $80 billion and nondefense levels by $63 billion, 
while raising fiscal year 2019 levels by $85 billion and $63 billion 
respectively.
  I have been told that this will move spending levels from 2009 
spending levels to 2011 spending levels, consistent with what we had 
done during those periods of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We saw a shutdown just over 2 weeks ago, and here we are again; I 
believe this is the fifth one since September. And since the 
Republicans control every branch of the government, we have to wonder 
what is going on here.
  I stood in this same spot after midnight in 2013 and announced that 
the great government of the United States was closed for business. At 
that point, they were closed for business for 16 days, which means all 
the Federal buildings and parks were closed. The vendors who had little 
mom-and-pop stores, newspaper kiosks, and things at Federal businesses 
lost all the money, a lot of it, people with lunchrooms. The estimate 
was $24 billion was lost to the Federal Government.
  As I recall that particular one, that was because Senator Cruz, a 
Republican from Texas, didn't like the Affordable Care Act and 
apparently was not in favor of giving healthcare to the American 
people.
  The first shutdown that occurred when I first came here was during 
the Clinton administration, when Speaker Gingrich shut down the 
government of the United States because he was unhappy with the plane 
seat in Air Force One that had been assigned to him.
  And 2 weeks ago, it was blamed on the Democrats, which is very 
strange, since the Democrats do not have the vote to shut down the 
House. Only the majority has those votes. And this is the first 
shutdown in history, as far as we can find, that the group of persons 
who control the House, the Senate, and the White House have given 
themselves a shutdown. It is a pretty sad day for us.
  So here we are, 3:30 a.m., 3\1/2\ hours after a government shutdown 
once again. We have really got to stop this. I tell you, our fellow 
Americans are in a state of nervous anxiety. The stock market dropped 
1,000 points in a single day, twice this week. We have perplexed the 
entire United States of America as well as large parts of the world.
  And I would think that a reasonable person, looking at all this, 
would be understood to believe that perhaps Republicans are incapable 
of running the government because it is purely, purely government by 
nothing but crisis.
  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 appreciate the distinguished gentlewoman for her help 
to make sure that the Rules Committee effectively and carefully got 
their work done this evening, and I want to thank the gentlewoman. I do 
know it is 3:30 in the morning, and the entire committee, the entire 
Rules Committee, was prepared on both sides, and I thank the 
gentlewoman and the staffs that were included.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress who are elected by their respective 
districts come to Washington to represent their districts. But perhaps, 
I think, more importantly, some bit of those people also take into 
account, not just the representation of their district, but the pride 
and authorship they have in particular about America, about being a 
part of America and us standing together.
  Tonight, we are going to have a chance to say back to one of our 
Members who has come to Washington, D.C., representing her home of 
Puerto Rico, home territory of Puerto Rico, and to say back to her that 
this body offered its condolences for the storms that happened last 
year.
  She stood up, representing Puerto Rico. She is a former Speaker of 
the House of Puerto Rico. She stands with the people of Puerto Rico. 
She has come and visited Member after Member after Member to sell to 
them, not only the attributes of how to fix Puerto Rico, but came and 
did the things legislatively.
  With great, great admiration, I will tell you that our next speaker, 
who is a member of the Republican majority, has really done an 
outstanding job as a brand new Member of this body; and I am pleased 
that we can say tonight, included in this package is that disaster 
package that the House passed last, I think, October.
  She has worked hard. She has had faith and confidence, not only in 
her home territory of Puerto Rico, but in her body here, the United 
States Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with extreme pride that I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon), the former Speaker 
of the House of Puerto Rico.

  Miss GONZALEZ-COLON of Puerto Rico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman 
for allowing me to support this rule that will have, finally, this bill 
to be considered on this floor.
  I think it is important to acknowledge that still, 5 months after the 
storm, after Hurricane Maria and Hurricane Irma hit Puerto Rico and the 
Virgin Islands, 30 percent of Puerto

[[Page H997]]

Ricans are still without power. That is something that you will never 
expect in a U.S. territory or neither a State.
  So that is one of the biggest reasons I stood here, at 3:30 in the 
morning. Why? Because it is time to show our deeds in terms of 
supporting a bill that will have the money to restore the power grid in 
Puerto Rico, to help the island to recover from the last hurricanes.
  Also, we were facing a medical cliff in April of this year--a medical 
cliff that will put an end to the insurance to 680,000 patients in the 
island. That is the reason this bill is so important for Puerto Rico.
  Actually, we have been waiting for 2 months. This bill has been 
stalled in the Senate, and I actually am very happy to see that 
agreement between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate voted 71-28 
to have this bill here tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I need to say that today Congress will make a critical 
vote in terms of that we finally have a budget deal, and this is the 
time to vote, not for ideologies, but for the people, for American 
citizens all over the States. For the States and territories that were 
struck by disaster during the last year, this bill will provide 
billions of dollars, including improvement to Puerto Rico's electrical 
power network.
  It also takes the steps to secure the island's Medicaid program and 
ensure that our people do not lose their health coverage. For the past 
year, I have been fighting to ensure Puerto Rico receives the money 
necessary to avoid that medical cliff now in April. This funding will 
give Puerto Rico and Congress the time to craft a long-term solution, 
not just for Puerto Rico, but for all U.S. territories, and help out 
the medical problems that we all face.
  I want to thank, especially, the Speaker of the House, Speaker Ryan, 
the members of this leadership who have been supporting me all of the 
way; the chairmen, Chairman Walden, Chairman Burgess, Chairman 
Sessions, Chairman Frelinghuysen; and all members of this House 
leadership who have been working with me, visiting the island, even 
Members from the other side of the aisle, supporting Puerto Rico.
  You know what? That is the hard work that we need to do for our 
people.
  On the Senate side, I need to thank our special friend and advocate, 
Senator Marco Rubio, who has been supporting this issue since day one.
  I also want to thank all Members of both Chambers willing to save 
Puerto Rico from near collapse and to help their fellow citizens in the 
island.
  I urge my Democratic colleagues, if we want to help Puerto Rico, now 
is the time to do it. It is not just talking, it is time to act. It is 
time to vote for this kind of bill. We can't be hostage of another 
bill, and I do support having an immigration bill happen.
  This is a disaster bill that has been included. It has been included 
in this budget, and we must take action today. That is the reason; this 
is the time to show it, not by words, by acts. That is the reason I ask 
my colleagues to vote for this, not say just we want to help Puerto 
Rico. This is the time to show you really want to help Puerto Rico; you 
really want to help the island.
  I understand that, as the Senate did a few minutes ago, we can come 
together and support what we are willing to do. In Puerto Rico, there 
are still a lot of things that need to be done. There are so many needs 
to be met. But let's continue to work together, as the Senate did 
today; and I hope, and I expect, the House can do the same thing.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  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 must pass before the time runs out on hundreds of thousands 
of young people who were promised, by a previous administration, that 
if they registered and paid $500, they could stay in the only country 
they know.
  Without any warning, the new President invalidated the program and 
their lives. The things that they were promised were taken away, and 
those young people, a part of our lives, are living in fear. I really 
hope that we can do something about that. It is past time.
  But I think what happened to them was most un-American.
  So I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the 
Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham) to discuss our 
proposal.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I stand here 
this morning for Nicole, Miriam, Antonio, Karen, Leo, Adriana, and 
hundreds of thousands of other young Americans who dream and pray for 
only one thing: that this esteemed body of elected Representatives, 
endowed with a solemn responsibility to enact laws, will see a piece of 
themselves in them; that they will see beyond the circumstances by 
which they came to call America home and, instead, see the American 
values that they hold deep in their heart of hearts.
  I would surmise that there isn't one congressional district that 
isn't home to a DREAMer, and, by God, we are all lucky for it because, 
to our kids, DREAMers are their friends; to our students, DREAMers are 
their teachers; and to our seniors and elders, DREAMers are, in fact, 
their caretakers.
  DREAMers are entrepreneurs with the grit and determination to do 
something with nothing, following in the footsteps of intrepid 
explorers who forged new paths that led us to amazing discoveries.
  To our economy, DREAMers are a well-oiled engine of valedictorians, 
doctors, software engineers, and technicians hoping to give back to 
their communities. Their imagination and determination is a driving 
force in the offices of Fortune 500 companies and the Main Streets of 
our towns and cities.
  And every year, for the next decade, DREAMer ingenuity and tenacity 
will quite literally pump billions into our economy. Their efforts help 
America grow faster and stronger. And collectively, for our Nation, 
they represent our future and are a reflection of our values.
  DREAMers are wide-eyed American optimism. They work so hard because 
they are so grateful and, despite setbacks, they persevere. Despite 
struggles, they overcome, just as Americans always have. And in the 
face of unbelievable adversity, DREAMers beam the hopefulness and 
dynamism that gives meaning to the American promise.
  Our Founders knew that our democracy wasn't perfect, but they 
believed that, as lawmakers and representatives, we would work every 
day to live up to the ideals they set forth. And today, we have an 
opportunity to do just that.
  All we have to do is enshrine the promise that unlocked the 
incredible potential of these young Americans by passing the Dream Act 
now. With one vote, we have a chance to unite our country around young 
people who embody our belief that hard work actually pays off.
  So I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that 
we can immediately bring the Dream Act to the floor and provide 
certainty for Americans like Nicole, Miriam, Antonio, Karen, Leo, and 
Adriana who want to continue to contribute to the country that they 
love, the only country they have ever known. We cannot afford to wait 
another day.

                              {time}  0340

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), a member of the Republican leadership team.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, at 3:40 in the morning, I am a little 
surprised that some of our colleagues wish to reprise history, but I 
guess so be it.
  Some forget here that we passed all 12 appropriations bills in 
September, to no avail. They sit in the Senate requiring 60 votes.
  I remember a few days ago I stood here and we talked about math with 
my colleagues, and the Republicans had 51 votes in the Senate. A 
democracy requires people work together.
  The Senate decided not to do that, so we have ended up with a series 
of continuing resolutions, what I consider to

[[Page H998]]

be an absolute travesty of governance. We have to fund the government 
in pieces. A month here, 6 weeks there.
  The last CR, we almost had a deal. It seemed like there was an 
arrangement we would have to move forward to fund the government before 
the shutdown.
  But, I will stress, some of our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle in the other Chamber decided to throw the kitchen sink at it, 
demand their entire legislative agenda be put into a CR; DACA, which we 
are hearing tonight, then they came up with pensions. It was one thing 
after another of demands, using funding our military, funding our 
government, keeping the lights on as leverage for their political 
agenda.
  We have a basic function here: keep the lights on.
  The second thing the Constitution says is to preserve and protect our 
Nation, which means we have to fund our military. But some have felt 
this is not necessarily a priority of theirs if they can't get the 
other things they want when they want them.
  We now have a bipartisan agreement that the Senate has sent over. It 
is far from perfect. I don't know if we will ever see perfect in this 
Chamber. In my 35 years of business, I rarely saw perfect, but you take 
progress and move on.
  What does it do for us?
  It fully funds defense at the level that Secretary Mattis requested 
so we can defend our Nation against the threats we see and take care of 
our military men and women.
  It funds community health centers. I have 11 of them in my district. 
It provides 10-year funding for CHIP now--the Children's Health 
Insurance Program--near and dear to all of us.
  It provides a down payment on infrastructure that is badly needed in 
this country.
  It provides additional funding for opioid treatment in this Nation, a 
crisis that we face.
  So, again, I am left to wonder why it is we want to defeat the rule 
to turn down this effort, this bipartisan agreement, to add another 
agenda in there. Why would my colleagues want to do that?
  At some point in time we take progress. The Speaker has indicated we 
will deal with DACA. We will also move on to dealing with 
infrastructure. We will move on to workforce development. We have got 
serious policy issues to deal with, but the priority we have at this 
moment in time is to fund the government.
  We have a bipartisan agreement in front of us that has cleared the 
Senate. It is now 3:43 a.m. I suggest we simply pass the rule, pass it, 
and go home and get on with policy next week.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that this body is descending 
down a fiscally irresponsible path, a path to trillion-dollar deficits, 
a path to mortgaging the future for my children and yours.
  To be clear, what this massive spending bill includes is a 14.6 
percent increase in defense spending and a 12.2 percent increase in 
nondefense spending this year. Next year, a 15.1 percent increase in 
defense spending and 12.9 percent in nondefense spending.
  The headlines in The New York Times, Mr. Speaker, says: ``As Deficit 
Soars Toward $1 trillion, Congress Shrugs and Keeps Spending.''
  I also want to quote from the Los Angeles Times. It says: ``The 
budget deal also means that the United States probably will be 
returning to trillion-dollar annual deficits . . . .''
  When Trump took office about a year ago, the Congressional Budget 
Office projected the Nation's deficit would run between $500 billion 
and $700 billion. Now, with lower tax revenues and new spending, the 
deficit will blow past $1 trillion in 2019.
  To be fair, I have long argued that $500 billion to $700 billion 
deficits are too large. I have supported spending cuts, and I opposed 
the massive Republican giveaway to special interests through the tax 
reform bill.
  It would be easy to say here, Mr. Speaker, that the Republicans own 
this deficit, the Republicans own this debt. But that is too easy, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Do you know who owns this debt?
  My family and yours. It is owned by the American people, Mr. Speaker, 
in the form of future taxation, in the form of future reduction in 
services, in the form of a future threat to Social Security and 
Medicare.
  This fiscally irresponsible path has got to end. I will be opposing 
this bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who care 
about the fiscal solvency of this Nation to join me in opposing this 
irresponsible spending bill.
  As has been mentioned, this bill also fails to include comprehensive 
immigration reform or the Dream Act.
  I would note that comprehensive immigration reform, which passed the 
Senate with a more than two-thirds vote a few years ago, would reduce 
our budget deficit by over $200 billion in increased tax revenue and 
increased economic productivity.
  While the Dream Act and similar measures haven't been formally 
scored, they also would contribute to reducing our budget deficit 
because hardworking Americans would be able to get jobs, pay taxes, and 
participate in the American Dream.

  If this massive Republican spending bill passes, it will only dig our 
Nation deeper into a debt that will become harder and harder to ever 
emerge from.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this massive Republican 
spending bill and to get to work on fiscally responsible measures, like 
comprehensive immigration reform and the Dream Act; to reduce our 
budget deficit and, hopefully, eliminate it rather than bloat it 
further and further.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of 
Administration Policy, which is referred to as a SAP. It comes from the 
Executive Office of the President.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could read the last paragraph: ``If the Bipartisan 
Budget Act of 2018 were presented to the President in its current form, 
his advisors would recommend that he sign it into law.''

                   Statement of Administration Policy


  Senate Amendment to H.R. 1892--Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018--(Sen. 
                            McConnell, R-KY)

       The Administration supports Senate passage of the 
     substitute amendment to H.R. 1892, the Bipartisan Budget Act 
     of 2018. This amendment raises the defense spending caps for 
     fiscal year (FY) 2018 and FY 2019, a key step toward 
     fulfilling the President's promise to rebuild America's 
     military and ensure funding would be provided to support the 
     enacted National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2018 (NDAA).
       After years of dangerous spending reductions and an 
     unpredictable budgetary environment perpetuated by numerous 
     continuing resolutions, the Bipartisan Budget Act lays the 
     groundwork for full funding of America's national defense, 
     within the framework of the Administration's National 
     Security and Defense Strategies and the NDAA. Passage of this 
     legislation would ensure America is prepared to deter and, if 
     necessary, defeat the full spectrum of threats from rival 
     powers, rogue states, and terrorist organizations like the 
     Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
       The Bipartisan Budget Act lays the groundwork for higher 
     investments in several Administration priorities, including 
     infrastructure and combating the opioid epidemic, and the 
     Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to 
     reflect the Administration's detailed funding priorities for 
     the remainder of FY 2018 and for FY 2019 for both defense and 
     non-defense needs.
       At the same time, it is critical that the Congress work to 
     decrease non-defense spending in other areas to reduce 
     America's growing national debt. The Bipartisan Budget Act 
     provides non-defense discretionary spending levels higher 
     than the Administration deems necessary. Additionally, 
     although the Bipartisan Budget Act does include some spending 
     reductions, the Administration has proposed hundreds of 
     billions of dollars in additional spending reductions that 
     the Congress should also enact without delay in order to 
     improve our fiscal state.
       Further, the Administration recognizes the Congress's 
     desire to provide significant funding for victims of the 
     recent hurricanes and wildfires, as provided in the 
     Bipartisan Budget Act and previously in the House-passed 
     supplemental bill (H.R. 4667). The Administration looks 
     forward to working with the Congress to ensure that adequate 
     oversight is exercised over disaster-related funds to ensure 
     that these funds reach the communities devastated by natural 
     disasters and are not misapplied.
       The Administration supports other components of the 
     Bipartisan Budget Act, including greater certainty for the 
     Children's Health Insurance Program, an extension of funding 
     for Community Health Centers, and repeal of Obamacare's 
     Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The IPAB authority 
     allows an unelected, unaccountable board to undertake major 
     changes to the Medicare program. The repeal of IPAB furthers 
     the President's goal of repealing and replacing Obamacare.

[[Page H999]]

       The Administration also supports suspending the debt limit 
     until March 2019 to provide the certainty to markets around 
     the world that the United States will honor its obligations.
       Furthermore, the Administration is concerned with future 
     extensions of special interest tax deductions and benefits in 
     the wake of tax cuts and reforms that were enacted in 
     December 2017.
       The President's top priority is to keep the Nation safe 
     from those who wish to harm it, both at home and abroad. To 
     do so, the United States military needs the resources 
     provided in the Bipartisan Budget Act, which have previously 
     been supported on a bipartisan basis in the NDAA and in 
     multiple bills passed by the House.
       If the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 were presented to the 
     President in its current form, his advisors would recommend 
     that he sign it into law.

  Mr. SESSIONS. There should be no question about that, that the 
President of the United States is asking not only Members of Congress 
but the American people to understand how important it is to make sure 
that this government is up and running, to make sure that our military 
is funded, and that the men and women who protect this great Nation, 
those volunteers to our military, deserve a right to have us fully fund 
our military for the rest of the year.
  I know and the Chair knows, Mr. Speaker, that this deal is only until 
March 23. But we should not ever allow our military to be put in harm's 
way. They are the ones who protect us, and for us putting them in 
harm's way without the money to protect them I think is bad timing and 
a bad way for us to extend our support to the military.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today, at 10 minutes to 4 o'clock Eastern 
time, that we can say we are going to move forward with this bill that 
fully funds the military for the rest of the year. I will ask our 
Members at the very end, accordingly, to please support this underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a distinguished member of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise because I believe we ought to help the DREAMers. 
My Republican colleagues have said they want to help the DREAMers as 
well, yet they have done nothing.
  I am deeply frustrated, angry, and disappointed that in the greatest 
deliberative body in the world, we are constantly prevented from 
deliberating.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
defeat the previous question so we can bring up the Dream Act so we can 
help nearly a million people in this country, mostly young people who 
came here when they were very, very young, who know no other country 
but this country as their own.
  We ought to find a way to protect them, to give them peace of mind. 
That shouldn't be a radical idea. Yet we can't seem to ever bring to 
the floor a remedy, a solution to help these people.
  Speaker Ryan, when he took the gavel in 2015, promised a return to 
regular order. He said: ``We need to let every Member contribute.'' He 
also said: ``We ought to open up the process and let people 
participate.''
  Well, there is a bipartisan group here who believe we ought to 
protect the DREAMers, who have a solution: the Dream Act. Let us bring 
it to the floor, have a debate, and vote on it. If my Republican 
colleagues don't want to vote for it, they can vote ``no.'' But we 
ought to have a debate on this.
  This is a big-enough deal. This is an important enough issue where we 
ought to have this debate. It really is frustrating that at this late 
hour we can't even get a commitment from the Speaker of the House to 
bring this issue to the floor.
  This spending bill that we are talking about, this budget deal, would 
pass overwhelmingly. All Democrats, I am sure, would support it if the 
Speaker would just make one promise, and that is that we can bring a 
bill to the floor, a bill that we think is appropriate, to help the 
DREAMers. That is it.
  If my Republican friends don't want to support it, they can vote 
``no.'' But to not let an issue like this be debated on the floor, to 
not think it is important enough to bring before the full House, is 
unconscionable.
  I don't know whether my friends on the other side of the aisle have 
met DREAMers or not, but they have been here. They have been knocking 
on your door. These are incredible people. They contribute to this 
country in so many ways. They have led efforts to help protect people 
who have been victims of hurricanes all throughout this country. They 
have saved lives. They serve in our military.
  All we want is a vote. That is it. And I just, for the life of me, 
can't quite understand why this is such a heavy lift.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so we can have this debate. I am tired of all the 
excuses. I am tired of all the reasons that we are being given why we 
can't debate this issue. This is important. These are real people. 
These are members of our community. They are our neighbors. The time 
has come for us to act.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. Let's have this debate. Let's protect the DREAMers. Let's do 
the right thing. But enough of the excuses. Enough of the excuses. It 
is time to vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this past year, 80 members of our armed 
services lost their lives in training and noncombat-related fatalities. 
We are going to attempt tonight, not wait, to pass a bill which will 
offer funding for our military.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  I thank the members of the Rules Committee, all of them, for the 
great service they provide to the House of Representatives, this great 
House of the people.
  I wish that the Speaker would treat the House of the people with the 
dignity that it deserves by giving us an opportunity, just an 
opportunity, for him to say that he would bring legislation to the 
floor, the Hurd-Aguilar bill for one, and then the other pieces of 
legislation regarding DACA so that the House could work its will under 
the queen-of-the-hill rule.
  Last night, Mr. Clyburn, the assistant leader; Mr. Hoyer, the 
Democratic whip; and I sent a letter to the Speaker. It said: ``Dear 
Mr. Speaker: In the spirit of bipartisanship, we write again to 
reiterate our sincere desire to ensure that the government remains open 
and that the priorities of the American people are properly addressed. 
As you know, Democrats have been clear that we support a budget 
agreement that ensures our men and women in uniform have the resources 
they need to protect our country and that America's middle class and 
working families have the tools they need to succeed. As part of this 
agreement, we have always expected that the House and the Senate would 
address the issue of DACA and the DREAMers.

  ``Most of our Members believe that this budget agreement is a 
reasonable compromise to address America's military strength and 
critical domestic priorities, like fighting the opioid crisis, boosting 
the National Institutes of Health, moving forward to resolve the 
pension crisis, caring for our veterans, making college more 
affordable, and investing in childcare for working families.''
  The agenda that I read was what we fought for and obtained in the 
budget agreement. We did not object to the large amount of money that 
was in the bill for defense, although some had asked: What is the 
purpose? What is the mission?
  We said: Let's go forward with that. But to keep faith with the 
budget agreement, we insisted that the increases in defense would be 
met by increases on the domestic side.
  So we have fought this fight. This is a success for us to get, as I 
said, the opioid crisis, boosting the NIH, the pension crisis, caring 
for our veterans, making college more affordable, and investing in 
childcare for our working families. This was the fight we had

[[Page H1000]]

with the Republicans because they have a reluctancy to support domestic 
spending.
  So the fact that this came to agreement after months of going back 
and forth on the caps, I think, is very important to recognize.
  But, again, writing to the Speaker: ``We are writing to again 
reiterate our request that you make a public statement regarding the 
scheduling of a vote on a DACA bill. Our request is that you publicly 
state that you will schedule a vote to consider the bipartisan Hurd-
Aguilar bill and any other DACA bills that you wish to consider under a 
Queen of the Hill rule,'' as I mentioned earlier.
  ``We strongly believe that Members of the House and their 
constituents deserve the same dignity that Leader McConnell has 
extended to Members of the Senate by allowing for a vote on this issue.
  ``Thank you for your immediate attention to this letter.''
  So we haven't heard back from the Speaker on this, but I do support 
defeating the previous question.
  One of the gentlemen on the other asked: Why would anybody vote 
against this bill? Why would anybody vote against this rule?
  Well, because we have an opportunity right here to take matters into 
our own hands. Defeat the previous question so that we can take up the 
Dream Act.
  That would be the House working its will, because we do know that the 
Dream Act has support on both sides of the aisle. We thank our 
Republican colleagues, those who have spoken out publicly, for their 
courage in supporting this protection.
  If another country said that they were going to deport 800,000 people 
or place in jeopardy their protections under the law, we would be 
appalled. We would criticize them. So how can we, the United States of 
America--give me your poor--you know Emma Lazarus. I don't have to go 
into it right now.

                              {time}  0400

  But I do. We all carry it in our hearts. So I urge a ``no'' on the 
previous question because a ``yes'' would have allowed us to bring up 
the Dream Act.
  I really want to disabuse anyone in this body of any idea that we are 
not there to support our men and women in uniform and to give them the 
resources they need to keep themselves and our Nation safe. But I do 
recognize also that what our military are protecting is the greatest 
country that ever existed in the history of the world, the United 
States of America.
  What is the United States of America?
  It is a country governed by a constitution that has been a beacon to 
the world. It is a country populated by the beautiful diversity of 
America. It is a country that has a beautiful patrimony given to us by 
God, our natural beauty. Fighting for those values is what we try to do 
in this bill.
  Why can't we extend the hand of friendship and protection to our 
DREAMers?
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague if he has 
any further speakers?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentlewoman I will be 
closing as soon as she does.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let's acknowledge that a deal like this could have come 
much sooner if the majority tried bipartisanship from the very 
beginning. Instead, our Nation has had to go through four short-term 
funding fights and two government shutdowns to arrive at where we are 
this morning. All of that was entirely preventible. It was brought on 
by the majority's inability to get its work done.
  It was little more than a week ago that President Trump stood in this 
Chamber and gave his State of the Union Address. In it, he proclaimed: 
``I call upon all of us to set aside our differences, to seek out 
common ground, and to summon the unity we need to deliver for the 
people.''
  That was Tuesday. But the following Tuesday, the President said that 
he would love to see a shutdown. He keeps injecting incredible 
confusion and uncertainty as to what he actually would be willing to 
sign into law. I am aware that my colleague, Mr. Sessions, did assure 
us that he wants to sign this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been an awful long night, and it didn't need to 
be. We don't need to take up every crisis to the very brink. Since you 
control every lever of power in this government, you have failed the 
most basic responsibility: to run this government in a sensible and 
intelligent way. Everybody--all of us--know, whether we want to admit 
it or not, that this is no way to run a government and certainly not a 
government as important as the one we were sent here to represent.
  I also urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so the House can 
take up the Dream Act because time is so quickly running out on those 
young people. It would be a blot on our conscience for the rest of our 
lives if we did nothing to help.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend and colleague, the 
ranking member of the Rules Committee; and the entire Rules Committee, 
Republicans and Democrats; and our staffs for their work late tonight 
and well into the morning.
  Mr. Speaker, there was a question about the President of the United 
States and his advice that he has provided to this body. The President 
of the United States has indicated through a Statement of 
Administration Policy that there would be an expectation the President 
would sign this bill.
  What does this mean?
  This means that, as quickly as we can accomplish this rule, the 
underlying legislation, and the vote, perhaps as early as 7 o'clock 
this morning or earlier, the President of the United States may sign 
that; meaning that the American people could wake up today with 
confidence that the United States Senate and the United States House of 
Representatives has averted a further problem through the leadership of 
making sure that we move forward to fund the government.
  Make no mistake about it: there will be people who vote ``yes'' and 
people who vote ``no,'' and that is up to them. But, Mr. Speaker, 
tonight I would ask every Member of this body for that ``aye'' vote to 
do the right thing to fund the government.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 734 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       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

[[Page H1001]]

     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 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
  Suspending the rules and passing S. 96, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 186, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 67]

                               YEAS--224

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     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

                               NAYS--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Bridenstine
     Cartwright
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     Fitzpatrick
     Gosar
     Hudson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     LaHood
     Lewis (GA)
     Palazzo
     Renacci
     Turner
     Yoh

                              {time}  0431

  Mr. GOTTHEIMER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
  Stated for:
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 67.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 67.
  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.

[[Page H1002]]

  

  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 224, 
nays 193, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 68]

                               YEAS--224

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     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
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     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)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     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
     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

                               NAYS--193

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     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
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     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
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blum
     Bridenstine
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     Gosar
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Palazzo
     Turner
     Yoho


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  0439

  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.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 67 and ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 68.

                          ____________________