[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.

                          ____________________