[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 50 (Thursday, March 22, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H1759-H1767]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1625,
TARGETED REWARDS FOR THE GLOBAL ERADICATION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND
PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 23, 2018,
THROUGH APRIL 9, 2018
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 796 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 796
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
1625) to amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of
1956 to include severe forms of trafficking in persons within
the definition of transnational organized crime for purposes
of the rewards program of the Department of State, and for
other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of
order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the
Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of
Rules Committee Print 115-66. The Senate amendment and the
motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening
motion.
Sec. 2. On any legislative day during the period from
March 23, 2018, through April 9, 2018 --
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 4. Each day during the period addressed by section 2
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for
purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1546).
Sec. 5. Each day during the period addressed by section 2
of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
Sec. 6. The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may
insert in the Congressional Record not later than March 23,
2018, such material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate
amendment and the motion specified in the first section of
this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
{time} 0915
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, last night, at a late hour, the Rules
Committee met, where we had expert testimony that was offered on behalf
of the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations,
the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentlewoman from New York.
I would like to, if I could, express to my friend, Mr. McGovern, the
professional nature not only that he but Judge Hastings, another member
of the committee, represented the Democratic side at a time that is
very difficult for them with the passing and loss of a tremendous
leader in the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from New York,
Chairwoman Louise Slaughter.
Mr. McGovern and Mr. Hastings not only conducted themselves, in my
opinion, in a professional straightforward manner, but represented
their party quite well in a time of distress and a time of need. I want
to express my complete confidence not only in Mr. McGovern, but also
thank Judge Hastings for his professional demeanor last night as we
worked through very, very difficult issues till late in the night, till
early in the morning. And compliments also to the gentlemen, the
chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their professional
conversations that were had that were in the best interest not only of
the House of Representatives but the American people. I want to thank
Mr. McGovern publicly at this time for his professional cause and
substance.
Mr. Speaker, today we rise in support of this rule and, of course,
the underlying legislation. The rule provides for consideration of the
Senate amendment to H.R. 1625, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2018.
Mr. Speaker, this is funding the government for the rest of the year,
through September 30. This is an important measure. This is an
important measure not only for the American people, but it is important
for Members of Congress.
There are a lot of ways that we could stand and say what we are for
or what we are against, but the bottom line is that this is a piece of
legislation that has been worked on, on a bipartisan basis, Republicans
and Democrats, give and take, and has been worked on the other side of
the Capitol with the United States Senate.
It is in no way a perfect bill. That, I think, I learned a long time
ago, is hard to get through to be signed by the President. But with
that said, it yielded amazing results in a process that needed to come
to a conclusion.
This 12-bill appropriations package provides funding for fiscal year
2018 at levels consistent with the bipartisan budget agreement and the
National Defense Authorization Act.
After years of neglect, this body has taken the important step of
reshaping and rebuilding the United States military by providing them
$659.6 billion worth of funding for our national defense. But it is for
more than just national defense. It is also trying to give better
protection to the men and women who protect us, the men and women who,
today, are in cold, lonely, hot, dangerous places around the globe.
Mr. Speaker, a much-needed $65 billion increase over 2017 fiscal year
spending was essential. Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves.
More members of our armed services gave their life in defense of this
country in training exercises than they did in combat last year. This
is a hardy reminder for Members of Congress and the American people to
understand that our men and women not only fight hard, but they train
hard. And in that defense, we need to do a better job to make sure that
the equipment, the training, and the needs that they have are top
flight year-round not just in combat areas, but in training missions
where they are preparing to protect this country. Mr. Speaker, we have
come a long way to that, and I am proud of the work that we have done.
The agreement ends, I think, the irresponsible practice of pairing
dollar-for-dollar increases in defense spending with nondefense. This
is a hard fight. This is a hard fight not only Republican-Democrat, but
across this country. We have tried to make some balanced decisions. We
have tried to err on the side of using money for the best interest of
research and development and to move this country forward.
The bill strengthens missile defense. It strengthens and funds new
weapons systems for the military. And it heavily increases designated
counterthreats around the globe. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are
facing down one of the greatest threats to the world right now, North
Korea. Now is not a time to
[[Page H1760]]
shy away. Mr. Speaker, we will not shy away. These colors don't run.
It funds additional national security priorities, including nuclear
modernization, new nuclear submarines, and other important shipbuilding
and aircraft procurement for our United States military. Quite
honestly, Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) and her
counterpart from the appropriations committee looked at the exercise
that is necessary and came up to streamline and make sure that the
money that would be given would be necessary and only in defense of
this Nation.
This legislation also includes a long overdue 2.4 percent pay
increase for our troops. The men and women who care for our veterans
know that they need the help, and their service to this country will
not be without a thank-you, thus providing a record level of VA
funding, while increasing oversight to make sure that the benefits and
treatment of our veterans is properly taken care of.
The new Secretary Shulkin of the VA is very concerned about the duty
that they have to our veterans, and he has assured us this amount of
funding will allow he and the Department that opportunity to fix,
correct, and, long term, know that the long-term safety for our
veterans and their facilities will be accomplished.
It provides robust funding to fight terrorism. It enhances criminal
law enforcement and secures our borders by increasing funding for
border security and the enforcement of immigration law. This
legislation also includes new infrastructure funding for highways,
waterways, airways, railways, and other infrastructure priorities to
ensure public safety is taken care of and to promote economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, it provides $4 billion, the largest investment to date,
to combat the opioid crisis. We have spent a great deal of time not
only working on this Member to Member, but also State organizations
working with their members; Federal law enforcement; and the National
Institutes of Health, through the direction of Dr. Shiva Singh, their
chief medical officer who spent a great deal of time working with
Members of Congress, opioid task forces, substance abuse task forces,
and perhaps, most of all, the problems that we have that face this
great Nation, where we have addiction problems. These are addressed
within this spending bill.
Increase in funding by $3 billion, certainly the head of the NIH, Dr.
Francis Collins, believes that this investment in the National
Institutes of Health, including the National Eye Institute and other
important parts of NIH, will receive the funding that is necessary to
ensure that the men and women of this country who suffer long-term
effects of aging and other medical problems, that we can address them
and live up to our responsibility.
I thank Dr. Francis Collins and Dr. Shiva Singh for their instruction
to our important Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Tom Cole for his
great work at the NIH--$2.3 billion in new funding for mental health
training and school safety efforts help our children to make sure that
our schools are safe.
This is a brief rundown, Mr. Speaker, of the kind of work not only
that we have dug in and done on a bipartisan basis, but the kind of
work that I believe the American people want, need, and expect.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions), the chairman of the Rules Committee and my friend, for
the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the distinguished chairman of the
Rules Committee for his thoughtfulness in the aftermath of the passing
of our dear friend, the former chairwoman of the Rules Committee,
Louise Slaughter. We appreciate his support. We appreciate the support
of all the Republican members on the Rules Committee, especially for
the Democratic staff, but we are truly grateful for all of his
consideration and for all of his remembrances of our friend. We want
him to know it means a great deal to all of us, so we thank him.
I also want to take this opportunity to once again wish the chairman
of the Rules Committee a happy birthday. I had the honor to be with him
at 1:30 in the morning yesterday and to wish him happy birthday then.
So we will wish him happy birthday again at 9:30 in the morning, and we
wish him many, many more.
Mr. Speaker, you know, here we are, and I am kind of at a loss for
words. There is really not a lot to say. We are here, yet again, facing
another manufactured and totally avoidable crisis.
You know, what on Earth will it take for the Republican leadership of
this Congress to actually step up to the plate and start governing?
Because this process that is bringing us this bill today, I don't
think, represents good governing.
We have seen five continuing resolutions. We have seen two government
shutdowns in less than 6 months. It is mind-boggling. It takes my
breath away.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans control the House, they control the Senate,
they control the White House; but the truth is that it turns out that
they can't govern. Governing is hard work. It takes skill. It takes
compromise. It is not all press conferences and it is not all tweets.
It takes leadership.
So I would encourage our Republican colleagues to cut the nonsense
and get down to business. We can't keep on embracing processes like the
one that we are seeing unfold today. Give the American people the
certainty they deserve, fund this government the right way. But this
process that brings us this omnibus today, I think, is disappointing
not just to Democrats, but to a lot of Republicans as well.
Now, as lousy as this process was to get here, there are some things
in this agreement that we can be enthusiastic about. We are encouraged
by increases in spending for domestic priorities, like infrastructure,
education, medical research, and support for our veterans, among other
things. These are things that are of great importance to Members on the
Democratic side.
We are pleased that the negotiators on our side of the aisle worked
diligently to remove poison pill riders, and they fought to limit the
construction of the President's stupid border wall.
Our enthusiasm is tempered because of what else might be in the bill,
what we might not know. It is over 2,200 pages long, and it was posted
at 8 p.m. last night. I am not sure anyone in this Chamber has had the
chance to actually read the entire text of this omnibus. I don't know
how many inadvertent errors may be contained in this omnibus.
{time} 0930
I worry what kind of provisions we could find tucked away in this
bill in the days and the weeks to come.
This is no way to govern, Mr. Speaker. Our Republican colleague from
Louisiana over in the Senate, Senator John Kennedy, said yesterday that
he thinks this whole process is an embarrassment. He said: ``As bad as
it looks to the American people from the outside, it is worse on the
inside.''
I don't blame the Appropriations Committee. I have nothing but the
highest respect for Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey.
They did an incredible job, and they and their staffs deserve our
gratitude. There were many sleepless nights to be able to produce a
product so that we could actually move forward and not shut the
government down. They did what everybody expected them to do, and I
want to thank them for their work.
And to be honest with you, I don't really blame the Rules Committee.
We were given this last night, and we had to come up with a process and
a rule to bring it to the floor.
But I do blame the Speaker, and I do blame the Senate majority
leader, and I do blame the President, because they are in charge and we
shouldn't be at the brink of a government shutdown before we consider
spending bills. This should have been done months and months ago.
Mr. Speaker, again, the American people deserve much better. They
deserve a Congress that works for them, a Congress that is responsive
to their calls for action, a Congress that listens to all voices, both
Democrats and Republicans alike.
[[Page H1761]]
Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this omnibus legislation will
ultimately work its way through Congress and to the President's desk to
avert yet another Republican-manufactured shutdown.
But I would ask the Republican leadership of this Congress: Let's
reform the way we do business around here. I don't believe that those
of us in the minority expect to win all the time, but we expect to have
our voices heard, and we want and we demand a fair process.
We want enough time to read bills before you bring them up for a
vote. That is not too much to ask. Let's work together to bring a
little bit more transparency, a little bit more sunshine, and yes, a
little bit more democracy into the people's House.
This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. I
don't know why it is such a radical idea that we deliberate every once
in a while. Instead, we are presented with a 2,200-page bill, and we
have been given summaries, but, in all honesty, none of us know what is
actually in this bill and whether or not there are some things here
that, quite frankly, might be very, very troubling once we begin to
read this bill over the days and weeks ahead.
Let's have an honest and open debate. Let's resolve that we are not
going to ever go back to this process again where we fund government
hour to hour. We need to get back to important issues facing our
country and the American people.
Again, I want to express my gratitude to the appropriators and to
those who were in these negotiations to try to get us a bill here
today, but this is a lousy process, and I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the rule. We can't sanction this process.
No matter what you think about the bill, this process is something
that we have to stand up and say: This is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I not only accept
his advice about process and procedure, but I certainly would join in
with him to thank our appropriators, the men and women who, on a
bipartisan basis, Mr. Speaker, took time to wander to the other side of
the Capitol to engage their colleagues.
I can tell the gentleman, and he knows this probably on a firsthand
basis, much was discussed. This was a big process. This was at the end
of the year that I do agree with that should have taken place on
October 1, not on March 22, that we decided where we are headed.
But the discussion, the decisionmaking, the ability for both sides,
both parties, to deal on the same issues has gotten tougher and
tougher.
I support our Speaker and what he is attempting to do. He has opened
up the process. He has tried to make it to where the discussions take
place on a bipartisan basis. And the Speaker, I believe, has tried to
place before us, as Members of Congress, the opportunity to be heard,
to represent our thoughts and ideas.
I didn't win some of the issues that I was for. I held some ideas out
about a number of issues that we had been working on that were
contained in the bills that came out of the House only to come back
months later from the Senate in a different priority, in a different
way, and perhaps not exactly what I would have wanted.
It would be easy for me to say, however, that the greater good of
what we are attempting to accomplish is why we are here. Ultimately, we
have a duty, Mr. Speaker, we have a duty and a responsibility, to
ensure that which we finalize is in the best interest of the American
people. The overriding concern here is to make sure that the efforts of
government, albeit that we as Americans, I don't think, want to get all
that we pay for from government, we still recognize that there are
people in our midst that need a government--and I do, too--a government
that works well and is funded properly.
Mr. Speaker, last night we had an opportunity to hear from a number
of my colleagues on the Republican side, a number of Members of
Congress who spent hours waiting their time before the Rules Committee,
not an unusual intuitive process from a number of our Members who had
questions, comments, and concerns.
I promised to address one of them. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Massie) brought forth what was a discussion about what is known as the
NICS fix, or, as we refer to it, fixing NICS, a NICS fix.
Well, this is the database that is responsible for holding names and
giving approvals for those people who purchase weapons across the
United States. I agreed to provide some bit of an answer today and I
hope some clarity on the issue that relates back to December of 2017.
I told the gentleman last night that I believed that, while his
arguments were important and I supported exactly the underlying ideas,
and that is that we do not believe that agencies by themselves should
have the ability to deny an American citizen the right, the
constitutional right, for them to properly, legally own a weapon, as we
do know and remember back during a previous administration, at least
two agencies, the Social Security Administration and the Veterans
Administration, developed procedures by which they believed were
appropriate, but that I think have proven incorrect, to deny people a
weapon based upon a criteria that they established.
This fix NICS provision was corrected and is still in law, and, to
the best of my ability in double-checking, I would now like to notify
the gentleman from Kentucky that I believe it is properly done.
I would not be a part of making a change in the law, as I told him,
that would deny an American citizen under these two agencies without
lawful consideration of a hearing and with due process, and based upon
the law and constitutional requirements of our Constitution to deny
someone their right to keep and bear arms.
Mr. Speaker, please consider that I appreciate the gentleman who
showed up last night until late, late in the morning, and that he was
doing his duty, which I respect and admire, and I am trying to respond
back to him.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, the distinguished chairman of
the Rules Committee, said that he appreciated the Speaker's listening
to the different opinions of all Members here in the House.
I think the frustration here is not that we can't raise our voices,
the frustration here is that we cannot bring things that we care about
to the House floor for debate.
The gentleman just talked about the issue of guns. We are living in a
country where we have massacres on a regular basis. The American people
overwhelmingly want us to bring gun safety legislation to the floor.
Things like universal background checks, for example. The leadership of
this House will not let us bring those bills to the floor for debate or
for a vote. They have shut us out.
So this process that has been endorsed by the Republican leadership
is not open. It is very, very closed. In fact, we are on record to
becoming the most closed Congress in the history of the United States
of America. That is not something that I think the United States
Congress should aspire to. Maybe that is something that the Russians
might want to aspire to, but it is certainly not something that we here
in this country want to aspire to.
Everybody in this Chamber has ideas. Everybody represents the same
number of people. Everybody should be heard, and important legislation
and important ideas ought to be brought to the floor for debate and for
a vote.
If you do not want to vote for universal background checks, or if you
do not want to vote to ban bump stocks, or if you do not want to vote
for an assault weapons ban, then don't vote for it. But it is wrong and
it undermines this institution when, on issues like that, we are told:
You cannot deliberate on the House floor.
Another issue is DACA. The President of the United States single
handedly ended the DACA program, and he threw the lives of hundreds of
thousands of people into chaos. It was a cruel and rotten thing to do.
The President's arbitrary March 5 deadline ending this program has
come and gone, and instead of leadership and compassion, all we have
seen is partisan tweeting. It is maddening, and it betrays our values.
[[Page H1762]]
Earlier this month, President Trump tweeted: ``Total inaction of DACA
by Dems. Where are you? A deal can be made.''
Well, to answer President Trump's question, the Democrats are right
here, offering bipartisan solutions to protect these young Americans.
This is the 26th time that we have attempted to bring a bipartisan
bill, the Dream Act, for a vote on the floor. And I am going to ask
people to vote against the previous question so we can bring a solution
to the floor and protect these incredible young people who have given
so much to our country.
But this is the 26th time that we have attempted to do this.
And, by the way, this is not just a Democratic bill. There is
bipartisan support for this. And what is particularly frustrating is
that the Republican leadership of this House will not let us have that
vote.
Why?
Because they know it will pass. They know it will pass. They don't
want the majority to work its will in this Chamber. They have
deliberately said: No. We are not allowing you to bring that to the
floor.
If you want to help these people, you have to bring a bill to the
floor. And if you don't want to help them, well, bring the bill to the
floor and vote ``no.'' But this is ridiculous. There is bipartisan
support to fix this problem, to help these people, to live up to our
values in this country.
Again, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment
to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, and this bipartisan,
bicameral legislation would help hundreds of thousands of young people
who are American in every way except on paper.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues: Give us
the vote. Give us this vote. If you don't like it, then vote ``no.''
But if we were to bring this bill to the floor, I guarantee you it
would pass. I think every Democrat would vote for it, and a big chunk
of Republicans, maybe even a majority, might vote for this.
{time} 0945
I don't know what the gentleman is afraid of. I don't know why this
is so hard. This is the Congress of the United States. This is the
place where these issues are supposed to be resolved; and, instead, all
we get from the leadership of this House is obstruction, obstruction,
obstruction. They block everything--block everything. Everything is
closed. It is my way or the highway. Enough. These people deserve
better than this institution is providing. They deserve a vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Soto) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for
yielding.
Yesterday, the University of Central Florida in Orlando had a unique
student body president election. The candidates were Karen Caudillo, my
constituent, and Josh Bolona, both Dreamers, beneficiaries of the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Act. They ran on a platform of
justice and equality, and so did I. Today we celebrate Josh Bolona's
victory on becoming UCF's first Dreamer student body president.
So what a sad backdrop we have here today. President Trump declared
victory for getting $1.6 billion to start his wall in a tweet late last
night--$1.6 billion to start Trump's wall. So his wall gets funding,
but our Dreamers get left behind. How can I, in good conscience, go
home to my constituents and explain this?
I wonder aloud: When will our Dreamers be the priority? When will it
be their time to shine? When will they have their moment of
opportunity, a reprieve from worrying and from looking over their
shoulders every day?
Mr. Speaker, when will the waiting finally stop for them and the
living begin? When will the Dreamers finally get to dream?
Every week for 198 days, we have come here to ask our colleagues for
their consideration of the bipartisan Dream Act. I remind you of that
because it has been 198 days since the President put hundreds of
thousands of Dreamers at risk of losing their jobs, careers, their
families, and everything they have worked for their entire lives. Many
take solace in a court injunction issued in California and New York.
As a lawyer, I can tell you these Dreamers are hanging by a thread.
They are one adverse ruling away from oblivion.
What about the over 1 million Dreamers who are not part of the case?
Those young people who would be entering the program, the young sisters
and the young brothers of Dreamers who are in the DACA program and
those Dreamers who did not apply out of concern and out of a mistrust
they had for giving their information to a Federal Government that has
turned their back on them? They would have no quarter under these
injunctions and no rest. They have no peace.
Why can't we, once and for all, come together to give these deserving
young patriots who embody our deepest values the opportunity to earn
their citizenship, hardworking patriots like Josh, Karen, and hundreds
of thousands of others who will have contributed an estimated $460
billion to the U.S. economy over the next decade? These young people
are making positive and significant contributions to the economic
growth of our country which benefits all of us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Florida an
additional 2 minutes.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues across the aisle don't
want deportation of Dreamers on their hands, so why not do something
now, at this moment, at this time? Why not pass a law that would
permanently allow these young people to build a life here, to graduate
from college, to start a new business, and to show their immense
gratitude to a country that gave them a chance?
Today we have the opportunity to uphold our values and pass the Dream
Act so that these Dreamers and the millions of people who swore to
represent them aren't worrying and wondering any longer. We are asking
for one vote, just one vote, that will keep whole our principles and
ideals and allow these young people to pursue the American Dream.
So for the 26th time in 198 days, 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 Dreamers like Karen and Josh who
want to continue to work, live, and contribute to the only country they
love and the only country they have ever known. I cannot afford to wait
another day, nor can they.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I don't want to digress too much, but the gentleman from
Massachusetts referred to a process that just was embarrassing and did
not work. I recall, last night, testimony from the ranking member, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey): ``This is one of the best
processes that I can recall. We have products that we can be proud of.
We worked together.''
Mr. Speaker, it is hard doing business in this town. It is hard doing
business because we have disagreements. But let us not also
misunderstand that it was President Trump who challenged Congress when
our previous administration simply went about writing their own rules
and regulations that made the circumstances on our border not only more
dangerous, but very costly for every single American by encouraging
tens of thousands of people to travel through Central America to come
to the United States, and for us to take them into the United States
with illegality that has been ruled on by Federal courts in this
country.
A legal and lawful process is what President Trump is attempting to
have this Congress do. He understands that power under Article I and
the power under Article II. I believe that President Trump personally
invoked hours of his time to make sure that he properly worked with
Congress--key people from the House, key people from the Senate--
televised day after day to get
[[Page H1763]]
closer on the issue that he felt could gain resolution. It is a hard
issue. But to suggest in any way that President Trump is a culprit of
anything except leading to the best I believe would be an unfair
statement against his intended desire to resolve the issue.
Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee, under the strong
leadership of the gentleman from Georgia, Rob Woodall, and the strong
leadership of Tom Cole, provided evidence-based information not just to
sustain the document that we are here for, but actually to continue the
explanation of what we are doing and why, including the balances of
budgeting and those necessary items but also the content.
Our vice chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from
Oklahoma, Tom Cole, doubles in his duty to Congress, and he serves as
the lead appropriator, the chairman of the subcommittee that is
responsible for health, NIH, and research and development. Mr. Cole's
professional attributes really shined last night as he, with great
pride, discussed major, hard issues facing this Nation, facing the
United States, and facing the medical community in this country. I was
very proud of not only his content with the substance, but also with
the delivery of the product.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) to discuss this seemingly impossible work that he
made possible.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his gracious
comments. I appreciate the time, and I appreciate the fulsome praise.
I do want to talk just a little bit about process because I think, if
you are not on the Appropriations Committee, you probably haven't been
able to follow a lot of this. And, frankly, this process can be made
better; there is no doubt about it. I suspect, processwise, my friend
from Massachusetts and I are not very far apart on where we think it
ought to end up. But I do want the full body to understand what we went
through to get to this point.
First, it is important to remember that all 12 subcommittees of the
Appropriations Committee produced legislation last year. There were
full hearings and fulsome debate, and each subcommittee reported out
their product. Then the full committee dealt with each subcommittee's
report and presentation, and in doing so, all amendments were open from
both parties.
Eventually, of course, all those 12 were put into a single bill.
There were hundreds of amendments from both sides of the aisle that
were made in order in that process. That bill was brought to the House
floor in mid-September, and it was passed.
So, the House effectively did all of its work. It did the hearings;
it did the markups; it reported it to the floor; and it moved it across
the floor. We have been waiting for about 180 days for the Senate to
respond. I could point some fingers. I am not going to. They didn't get
a single appropriations bill across the floor, and only a few out of
the full committee.
We have finally, about 4 weeks ago, had a bipartisan negotiation at
the leadership level that reset the numbers: a big increase from the
Budget Control Act for defense spending. That is something Republicans
very much wanted, and many Democrats did as well. And, frankly, also,
an increase from nondefense discretionary spending as well--so new
numbers.
At that point, we began what is a pretty normal appropriations
process at the committee level. That is the so-called four-corner
prospect, when the ranking member of each subcommittee and the chairman
of that committee sit down with their Senate counterparts and negotiate
the differences between what were effectively Senate committee bills,
but bills that the House had moved fully across the floor.
There is a great deal of give-and-take in that. When you go as far as
you can to the subcommittee level, you kick them upstairs to the
chairman at the next level. They negotiate, and they solve those.
I can give you an example. In Labor-HHS, we had 12 issues unresolved
in a $170 billion bill. That is actually awfully good. They were moved
up to full committee. Nine of those issues were resolved there.
Eventually, three more were kicked up to the leadership level, and they
were all resolved there.
That happens for each and every subcommittee. So there is a great
deal of give-and-take.
Frankly, we begin this process knowing it needs to be a bipartisan
product in the end. You have to have 60 votes in the United States
Senate. There are 51 Republicans. Frankly, over here, obviously, they
will take both Republican and Democratic votes. So there is a good deal
of give-and-take in this particular process.
At the end of the day, we have got a bipartisan bill that both the
chairman and the ranking member brought before us last night. Again, as
I mentioned earlier, from a Republican standpoint, you are probably
most pleased with the defense number. That is something we have wanted
and the administration wanted.
But in the nondefense area, there are many, many things that both
sides agree on are very important for the national well-being: a $3
billion increase at the National Institutes of Health, the largest
increase in a generation; substantially more money on opioids, a crisis
we know affects all of our districts, $3 billion this year and $3
billion next year spread over a number of subcommittee jurisdictions.
There is a substantial increase in early childhood education and
childcare, something, again, that people on both sides of the aisle
feel strongly about. There is lots of money for mental health to follow
up on some of the initiatives that were laid out in the 21st Century
Cures Act, again, a bipartisan product. Now you are seeing bipartisan
appropriations to try and match the money with the legislation that was
created by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
There is money for school safety. This is probably the largest single
increase we have had. I think last year under, title 4, we did about
$400 million. This bill has $1.1 billion, a pretty substantial increase
in something I think we all care about. So, again, it has been pretty
extraordinary.
Also, I want to point out--we are all proud of our respective
committees--that Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey
produced an omnibus last year in April or May. They have done three
supplementals for the disaster relief. They now have produced this
omnibus which will fund the government for fiscal year 2018, and they
are hard at work on the next one. So they have been extraordinarily
productive.
My friend is right. I wish more of this work got piecemeal to the
floor so we could look at each bill. Hopefully, we can do that going
forward since we now have a top-line agreement between the two sides
for fiscal year 2019 as to what the bill will be.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oklahoma an
additional 2 minutes.
{time} 1000
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, we have the possibility of having a more
regular measure. But whether that can be achieved or not, I don't know.
In passing this bill, we have at least laid the groundwork for it.
I particularly want to single out Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking
Member Lowey because they have shown how Congress can work together.
They have managed all 12 of these bills--multiple bills in multiple
areas--and gotten them to the floor and across the floor in a
bipartisan manner.
So, if we can do the same thing in the body as a whole, I think there
would be much more appreciation and understanding and, frankly, much
more input. That would be a good thing. My friend is right about that.
But if we are going to do that, I would also add we have to think
through how many amendments there will be.
How much floor time do you want to give us?
If you are going to come down here with 200 or 300 amendments on each
side of the aisle, I guarantee you that all you will be doing is
appropriations for the whole year. As appropriators, we might like
that. As legislators in other areas, you might not. I think there has
got to be some leadership give-and-take on what the appropriate
structure is going forward.
But none of that should take away, number one, that the rule itself
is
[[Page H1764]]
bringing to the floor an extraordinarily important product. If we don't
get that product passed here on a bipartisan basis and in the Senate by
midnight tomorrow night, both parties will have participated in
shutting down the government of the United States. I don't think that
is something either of us want to do. As a matter of fact, each of us
have tried this once or twice, and we now know it is not a very
productive way to proceed.
I think we have got an opportunity, by passing of the rule--and I
urge passage of the rule--and then the underlying legislation, to do
some really good things for the American people to fulfill our
obligations.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I guess I would just say to my colleague from Oklahoma
that I have no problem with the appropriators. I think that is what
Ranking Member Lowey was talking about yesterday when she talked about
the process. The appropriators have done their work. They work in a
bipartisan way and it is not their fault that we are at this moment. As
I said, it is not even the fault of the Rules Committee. It is the
fault of the Republican leadership.
This bill that we are doing now could have been done last December,
but the Republican leadership couldn't figure out a budget agreement
until last month. Without top numbers, no one could move forward in the
House or in the Senate.
It turned out that what was more important was a tax cut for
billionaires. That was the priority. So they passed the tax cut for
billionaires and we get five CRs and two government shutdowns as a
result. This process cannot be explained away, cannot be justified, and
cannot continue.
I probably should have had the bill in front of me here for dramatic
effect, but it is 2,200 pages long. Again, it is not what I know is in
the bill that I have a problem with. It is what I don't know is in the
bill that concerns me. I know it concerns Democrats and Republicans
alike.
I just want to go back to something the chairman of the Rules
Committee referenced with regard to DACA and President Trump's,
somehow, support for these incredible people.
Let's not forget there was no reason at all--none--for this President
to end DACA. There was no deadline, there was no court case, there was
no law that required that the program come to an end. It was just
plain, old-fashioned cruelty and stupidity. That is what was at play
here: red meat for the extreme rightwing base that can never get to
``yes'' on anything regarding immigration.
The way we are treating these young people is unbelievably cruel. The
frustration level throughout the country is at an all-time high. Every
poll I have seen, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all
overwhelmingly support us helping the DACA recipients. There are
unbelievably high approval ratings for moving forward and passing a
bill like the Dream Act, yet we can't even get it to the House floor
for a vote.
We talk about a lousy process. That is what we are also talking
about.
We talked earlier about guns. We have record-high levels of gun
violence in this country and we have massacres that occur on a regular
basis. I am so grateful that millions of young people are going to be
out on the streets protesting on Saturday, demanding that their
government do something. They are frustrated that this Chamber,
supposedly the greatest deliberative body in the world, can't even find
the time to bring something to the floor for a debate. All we do is
have moments of silence in the aftermath of massacres.
It would give me hope for the future of these young people, because
they are not going to take it anymore. They are sick of the
indifference. They are sick of the lack of action. They are sick of
Members in this Chamber not listening to their voices.
I feel hopeful that, ultimately, we will take action and do the right
thing. I will tell you right now, for those who continue to turn their
backs on the demands of these young people, I don't think they are
coming back here after November.
But, again, the frustration that you are hearing on our side here
today--and I know that a lot of my Republican friends feel the same
way--is that this place is broken. This process stinks. There has to be
a better way to do this. None of us want to shut the government down.
People are going to vote how they want to on the omnibus, but I would
say: Don't endorse this lousy, broken process by voting for the rule.
People should vote against this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the time
remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman has any
other speakers.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall), the Rules Committee designee to the Budget
Committee, a gentleman who has served this Nation well and will
continue to serve the Budget Committee well.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on
the committee. It seems like I just saw him a couple of hours ago, but
only because I just saw him a couple of hours ago.
Mr. Speaker, you know as well as anyone that it is hard to get things
done around here. It is never made any easier by the recriminations
that circulate so widely. I appreciate the Speaker's admonition about
engaging in conflicts of personality. This is hard.
This isn't the bill I would have voted for. In fact, it is not the
bill I voted for the first time around. When this House did its job 9
months ago, when it was supposed to do its job, we voted on a
completely different bill. But as my friend from Massachusetts knows
full well, Mr. Speaker, if Republicans had 60 votes in the Senate, we
wouldn't be going through these machinations.
We go through these machinations for one reason and one reason only,
and that is, after a Republican-led House gets its work done, the
Senate can't. The Senate can't because they work in a much more
bipartisan way. As bipartisan as this institution is, that institution
is even more so by the Senate rules.
We talk about this as if it is a spending bill, Mr. Speaker. I just
want to be clear: this includes brownfields act reauthorization. That
is the bill that lets us go into environmentally damaged areas and
restore them. We haven't been able to get that done just in the normal
course of doing business. So to get it across the Senate floor, it is
now added into this bill.
The Child Protection Improvement Act, Mr. Speaker, is the bill that
provides the database so that caregivers and parents can go and see who
it is that is taking care of their children and make sure folks are
properly vetted. We couldn't get that through in the normal process, so
we had to add it into this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the CLOUD Act is the bill that allows law enforcement to
go and access information stored on clouds in other countries so that
you don't have to wait 9 months through bureaucracies so that you can
identify those terrorists, those criminals, earlier and more often. We
couldn't get that through the regular process, so we have got that in
the bill.
E-Verify, Mr. Speaker, is the provision that allows any employer to
dial in online to make sure that they are hiring American citizens. It
is buried in this bill, Mr. Speaker.
Together, we are getting things done. This bill is an example of
that. It is a source of progress, not an impediment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
the great State of Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority
whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding.
I have been here long enough to see my Republican colleagues bring to
the floor these bills and plop them down heavily on the table.
I have been here long enough to have citizens assault me in a town
meeting and ask: ``Have you read the bill?''
[[Page H1765]]
I have been here long enough to hear the demagoguery about: ``What's
in the bill? Do you know what's in the bill? Have you read the bill?
How can you do this?''
I have heard demagoguery about the 3-day rule. I call it the 24-hour-
and-2-second rule. That is the last second of the first day, 24 hours
of the second day, and the first second of the third day. We are not
even going to make that. This was filed at 8 o'clock last night.
I ask any Member in this House to join me in the well if you have
read this bill. Join me if you have read this bill.
No one is joining me.
These are earmarks. They call them authorizing legislation, but they
are earmarks. They are pieces of legislation in this bill that are
against the rules, of course, but we will waive those rules. They are
things that were gone through in the dark of night, at 8 o'clock last
night.
These are the appropriations bills, the only piece of this
legislation that were done properly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. When the Speaker became the Speaker, he said: ``We will
advance major legislation one issue at a time.''
How can any self-respecting Member of this House, how can any self-
respecting Republican who made that representation to my Tea Party
friends, vote for this rule?
I have no idea.
This is an abomination of the legislative process. You have had 6
months to get it right. Six weeks ago, the Speaker promised that an
issue of great importance to us, DACA, would be solved. It hasn't been
addressed, much less solved.
But the real problem is that nobody knows what is in this
legislation. With all due respect to the chairman of the Rules
Committee, he hasn't read this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. McGovern hasn't read the bill. I have not read the
bill. It was 8 o'clock last night. The only person that could read this
bill is the supercomputers. None of us even claim to be supercomputers.
This rule ought to go down. Very frankly, there are a lot of things
in here I know that I like and I know that everybody else likes, but if
we defeat the rule, we ought to go back to a process that we can
respect, that you argued you were going to follow, that you pledged to
the American people you were going to follow, and that Mr. Cantor and
Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Ryan wrote a book about and said they were going
to change this institution and do it right.
This is wrong. Vote ``no.''
{time} 1015
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me close by echoing the words of our distinguished
minority whip and by saying that we need a better process, and I hope
my colleagues will vote against the rule.
I just want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, one
of the reasons why I think there is so much polarization in this
Chamber, why it is hard to kind of get things done, is because of the
process. I think process matters. When people don't have the
opportunity to read the bills, when people are routinely denied the
opportunity to bring to the floor their ideas for debate and vote, it
results in increased tensions and increased polarization; and, quite
frankly, it undermines the integrity of this institution.
This is supposed to be the people's House. We all represent the same
number of constituents, yet routinely the voices of the people are
denied to be heard on this House floor.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, vote ``no''
on the previous question so we can bring the Dream Act to the floor, we
can help the Dreamers, we can help those DACA recipients who everybody
says publicly that they want to help, yet, when it comes to actually
helping them, all we get is obstruction from the Republican leadership
here. Let's bring that to the floor. This is our 26th time trying to do
it. Let's do something that will make a real difference, that will help
these people.
They deserve our help. They deserve our support. They are valued
members of our community. They are American in every way except they
weren't born here. And Democrats, Republicans, and Independents
overwhelmingly believe we ought to help them. We ought to stop playing
politics with the Dreamers.
I know the President is holding them hostage and wants a ransom that
gets bigger and bigger, and bigger, and bigger. Enough. Let's do what
is right for these people. So vote ``no'' on the rule. Make it clear
that this process is something that we cannot endorse or embrace. We
want a change in process. Vote against the previous question so we can
bring up relief for the Dreamers.
Finally, I just, again, plead with the Republican leadership of this
House, we need to have a better process here. If you want to end the
polarization, if you want to end the partisanship, you have to open
this place up. I don't think that is too much to ask.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank not only the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) but also thanks to the minority whip for coming and engaging
in this issue.
Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that this last summer, last summer, we
engaged in all 12 spending bills on the floor of the House of
Representatives. The Appropriations Committee received over 700
thoughts, ideas, so to speak, amendments for them to consider. It was
an open process. Mr. Speaker, on the floor, 232 amendments were a part
of the process of the 12 bills.
Last night, Nita Lowey, the ranking member, sat before the Rules
Committee at about midnight and said: It is late, but the process
worked. The process worked for Democrats. The process worked for
appropriators to work on a bipartisan basis, and the process worked in
the United States Senate.
Mr. Speaker, two members of the Appropriations staff, Shannon O'Keefe
and Nancy Fox, are sterling members of the professional staff of the
House of Representatives who did one heck of a job to make sure our
Rules Committee--staff and Members--got the information we needed.
I agree the process should be better. I urge my colleagues to support
this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules filed its
report (H. Rept. 115-614) to accompany House Resolution 796 the
Committee was unaware that the waiver of all points of order against
consideration of the motion to concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R.
1625 included:
A waiver of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, which
prohibits consideration of legislation providing new budget authority
in excess of a 302(a) allocation of such authority.
A waiver of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, which
prohibits consideration of legislation that would cause the level of
total new budget authority for the first fiscal year to be exceeded, or
would cause revenues to be less than the level of total revenues for
the first fiscal year or for the total of that first fiscal year and
the ensuing fiscal years for which allocations are provided.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 796 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec 7. 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
[[Page H1766]]
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. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3440.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
Adopting the resolution, if ordered;
Suspending the rules and passing H.R. 4227; and
Suspending the rules and passing H.R. 5131.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 186, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 123]
YEAS--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
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)
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
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
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
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
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--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)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
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)
[[Page H1767]]
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Amodei
Bridenstine
Clarke (NY)
Cramer
Cummings
Davis, Danny
Jones
Pingree
Walz
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1044
Messrs. McCLINTOCK, GOSAR, and KELLY of Pennsylvania changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 211,
noes 207, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 124]
AYES--211
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
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)
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
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)
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
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
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
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--207
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Biggs
Bishop (GA)
Blum
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brooks (AL)
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
Davidson
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gohmert
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gosar
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings
Heck
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Labrador
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
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Norman
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pocan
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Yoho
NOT VOTING--12
Blumenauer
Bridenstine
Cramer
Cummings
Davis, Danny
Gottheimer
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Murphy (FL)
Pingree
Schrader
Walz
{time} 1052
Mr. KING of Iowa changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
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.
____________________