[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.
____________________