[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 22, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4292-H4301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5515, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
S. 204, TRICKETT WENDLER, FRANK MONGIELLO, JORDAN McLINN, AND MATTHEW
BELLINA RIGHT TO TRY ACT OF 2017; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.
2155, ECONOMIC GROWTH, REGULATORY RELIEF, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 905 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 905
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, 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. 5515) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2019 for military activities of the Department of
Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 115-70 shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution.
(b) Each further amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. (c) All points of order against
the further amendments printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules or amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this
resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant
to this section shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole.
Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment pursuant to this resolution, the Committee of the
Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of
the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent
order of the House.
Sec. 5. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (S. 204) to authorize
the use of unapproved medical products by patients diagnosed
with a terminal illness in accordance with State law, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on
[[Page H4293]]
the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and
(2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 6. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2155) to promote
economic growth, provide tailored regulatory relief, and
enhance consumer protections, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one motion to
commit.
Sec. 7. Notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on the recorded vote ordered on the question of
reconsideration of the vote on the question of passage of
H.R. 2 may continue to be postponed through the legislative
day of Friday, June 22, 2018.
{time} 1115
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may 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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 905 provides for the
consideration of three important bills aimed at protecting our country,
reducing regulatory burdens in the financial sector, and allowing
patients who have nowhere else to turn with another option to
potentially save their lives.
These three bills, taken together, show House Republicans' commitment
to putting Americans' interests first.
Today's rule provides for a structured rule to begin consideration of
H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.
The resolution grants 1 hour of debate equally divided between the
chair and ranking member of the House Committee on Armed Services.
In addition, as the first of two likely rules on the fiscal year 2019
NDAA, the rule provides for the consideration of 103 amendments to the
defense bill.
Along with the Defense Authorization Act, the resolution today
provides for a rule for House consideration of S. 2155, the Economic
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, the Senate-
passed bipartisan bill to reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on
community and local banks by the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory
legislation.
The legislation went through rigorous debate in the House and the
Senate, and it mirrors in many ways the House-passed CHOICE Act, passed
by the House in the summer of 2017 under the stewardship of Financial
Services Chair Jeb Hensarling.
Moreover, the resolution before us provides for a rule to allow the
House to consider the unanimously passed Senate bill, S. 204, the
Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina
Right to Try Act of 2017.
This legislation, highlighted by the President during his last State
of the Union address, has been a top priority of the President for the
Congress, allowing terminally ill patients a last chance at survival
using a carefully crafted FDA process.
H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019, would authorize appropriations for military activities of the
Department of Defense and for military construction, as well as
prescribe military personnel strengths for the next fiscal year.
This critical piece of legislation, one of the most important bills
that any Congress will consider in any year, provides the resources and
the direction necessary for our men and women in uniform to do what
they do best: protect and serve our country throughout the world.
As will be discussed by many Members of this body over this week,
this bill touches on all aspects of military policy, from the Middle
East to the Korean Peninsula to the Arctic waters.
Among the hundreds of amendments the Rules Committee is likely to
make in order on this legislation, I am pleased that, once again, my
amendment, offered with Ms. Lee, Mr. Lance, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Jones, Mr.
Welch, Mr. Lewis, and Ms. Schakowsky, will again be made in order. This
continues to push the Department of Defense to finally complete a full
audit of its finances, as required by law.
S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act, corrects some of the more egregious provisions in the
Dodd-Frank financial regulatory legislation.
The bill focuses on regulatory relief on smaller financial
institutions--namely, community banks and credit unions--so they can
more readily meet the needs of their local communities without
burdensome Federal regulations stifling their economic growth. This
places the focus of the financial institutions back on their customers
instead of completing paperwork and answering to agencies in
Washington, D.C.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, our final bill in today's rule, S. 204, will
look familiar to many people here today, as we are again considering
legislation that would bring hope to terminally ill patients across our
country.
A similar bill, H.R. 5247, passed this House in March. Minority
Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats have refused to act on H.R.
5247, the revised version of the Right to Try legislation, which passed
the House 2 months ago on a strong bipartisan vote.
As this body had heard earlier this year, Right to Try was the one
piece of legislation that President Trump came and stood in the well of
this House and specifically promised to the American people in his
State of the Union address.
Today, I will say again what I said in March when we first took up
Right to Try: I stand with the President and I stand with the thousands
of Americans with terminal diseases and their families and their
friends in getting this important policy to the President's desk.
Mr. Speaker, when we pass this bill today, it doesn't go back to the
Senate. It has already been passed by the Senate. It goes immediately
down to the White House for a signature and becomes law.
Here is an interesting fact. In the last couple of months since the
House passed its Right to Try bill, even more States have joined this
strong grassroots movement. Now, 40 States, including my home State of
Texas, have passed and signed a version of Right to Try into law.
In nine other States, a version of Right to Try has already been
introduced, including the State of New York, which is the home State of
the minority leader of the United States Senate.
Last year, the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee held a hearing
on access to investigational drugs where S. 204 was discussed. At that
time, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Scott
Gottlieb, and other advocacy groups expressed concerns on the various
Right to Try bills introduced in the Senate and the House.
So, when the President asked the Congress to act, the House responded
by holding multistakeholder discussions with patient groups, medical
research advocates, and the administration in order to improve the
original Right to Try bill. I want to commend Chairman Walden for
leading these negotiations.
I am also proud of the revised Right to Try legislation that the
Energy and Commerce Committee produced because the policies were sound,
and I believe it was a positive step forward in granting access to new
treatments while allowing additional input from the Food and Drug
Administration.
Unfortunately, the minority party on the other side of the Capitol,
Senate Democrats, said ``no, thank you'' to the revised House bill.
While I am not surprised by their decision, I think the American
people, particularly patients
[[Page H4294]]
with terminal diseases and their loved ones, would not be satisfied
with a ``no, thank you'' nonaction by Congress on such an important
issue.
Today, the House is ready to act for the American people and will be
considering S. 204, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan
McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017.
This passed the Senate unanimously last August. This bill will offer
terminally ill patients a chance at life. After it passes this House,
it will be signed into law.
Our Nation has achieved unprecedented innovation and scientific
breakthroughs recently and over the course of the last decade. American
patients have widespread access to innovative treatments, thanks to
researchers and our academic institutions and those working in the
pharmaceutical and medical device industries.
Despite these achievements, we continue to hear from patients with
serious, life-threatening conditions, including my constituents from
north Texas, who remain frustrated with what they see as regulatory
barriers from trying new therapies when everything else has failed
them.
As a physician, I understand that access to investigational drugs and
therapies is a deeply personal priority for those seeking treatment for
loved ones diagnosed with very difficult diseases.
This crossroads where our Nation seems to be--when a potentially
lifesaving treatment, while not approved, both exists but remains
unavailable--is an important debate that we are having for these
Americans. To them, it is not only a matter of life or death but
another chance to spend more time with their children, grandchildren,
parents, and other family members.
Some of the opponents of Right to Try point to the Food and Drug
Administration's current expanded access program, which is aimed at
helping patients who do not qualify for clinical trials gain access to
therapies that the agency has yet to approve.
While this program makes a good faith effort to help patients, we can
do more by passing Right to Try and creating an alternative pathway for
these patients to access eligible investigational drugs.
Additionally, we know that many individuals may not qualify for a
clinical trial if they do not meet strict patient inclusion criteria,
which may include factors such as age, gender, type and stage of their
disease, previous treatment history, and other medical conditions.
There are also many patients for whom participation in a clinical
trial is not feasible, especially those who live in rural areas far
from the clinical trial sites.
Most, if not all, of the patients with a terminal medical condition
fall into one of these categories. This legislation that we are doing
today allows these patients to participate in an alternative pathway,
opening another door to investigational drugs that does not exist
today.
While there are a few differences between S. 204 and the House-passed
Right to Try legislation, the underlying policies between the two bills
are very similar.
For example, only certain investigational drugs are considered
eligible under both bills. In order to qualify, the drug must have
completed a phase one clinical trial; have an active application at the
Food and Drug Administration; be under active development or production
by a manufacturer; and not have been approved, licensed, or cleared for
sale under current law.
Also, both bills require reporting of serious adverse events, having
written informed consent to the treating physician, and notifying the
agency when a sponsor provides an investigational drug.
Lastly, Commissioner Gottlieb at the Food and Drug Administration
recently expressed support for the Senate-passed Right to Try bill
being considered today and said that his agency could ensure an
appropriate level of patient safety through guidance and rulemaking.
In other words, while the Food and Drug Administration may have some
additional work, the key point is the agency can achieve the proper
balance of ensuring patient safety and granting access to new
investigational drugs.
I think the Commissioner would agree that we would have preferred the
revised House Right to Try legislation, but doing nothing is currently
not an option. Hundreds of thousands of Americans with terminal
illnesses and their families are looking for us to act. I support
restoring hope for these patients and giving them a fighting chance at
life.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of this esteemed body to support today's
rule and all three underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30
minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying measures that are in this combined rule
are matters of substance that do need to be addressed, and I will get
back to it in a moment.
Several of my colleagues will join me today in recognizing a historic
moment in this particular body in this great country of ours.
Madam Speaker, let me recognize that tucked inside this rule is the
majority's 83rd and 84th closed rules of this Congress--and we are just
in May--with more to go.
{time} 1130
That is a historic number because it makes the 115th Congress the
most closed Congress ever. My Republican friends have made history for
all the wrong reasons.
But we should not let this milestone go unrecognized right from the
very beginning, because it is a sad point in this Chamber's history. It
is why we have ignored virtually every major issue the public cares
about. It is why this Congress can't get anything done. It is why we
are so dysfunctional.
It is clear to me that the majority has turned a deaf ear, which is
absolutely shameful. Please know this: 1,793 amendments offered by
Members of this body have been denied.
When I came to Congress in 1992, there was an echo chamber from the
right talking about the Democrats' closed rules. Quite frankly, at that
time, I did not understand that dynamic. I arrived here, and during
that particular session of Congress, we did have open rules, but there
were closed rules as well.
When Nancy Pelosi was last Speaker, we had 12 open rules. This
Speaker, our now lame-duck Speaker, up to this point, has been and is
the only Speaker of the House of Representatives never to have an open
rule. What that means is not just Democrats have been shut out but
Republicans have been shut out.
Day in and day out, night in and night out, in the Rules Committee,
Members offer up meaningful suggestions to this Congress, and they are
denied. That is not denying the Member of Congress; it is denying the
people those persons are here to represent and who expect them to
advance measures that are pertinent to their respective communities.
There will be Members who will talk about the shamefulness of the
kinds of amendments that have been denied.
This particular measure authorizes $647 billion in base budget
authority for defense programs in the coming fiscal year, as well as an
additional $69 billion in overseas contingency operations.
The legislation comes on the heels of the bipartisan budget agreement
signed into law in February, which increased the budget caps for
defense and nondefense spending for 2 years.
The legislation provides, rightly, a 2.6 percent pay raise for
Active-Duty troops, the highest such raise in 9 years. It strengthens
the Military Health System, provides assistance to local educational
agencies servicing military dependent students, and improves the
Transition Assistance Program to provide servicemembers better tailored
resources and information as they prepare to enter civilian life.
I was glad to see that this NDAA establishes a prescription drug
monitoring program in order to prevent opioid abuse within the
military, a proactive step that will help our country combat drug
addiction.
What is important about this particular measure is the chairman,
Chairman Thornberry, and the ranking member, Adam Smith, have worked
together, along with the members of the Committee on Armed Services, to
[[Page H4295]]
produce a bipartisan product. It proves it can be done.
This is a bipartisan measure, and most Members in this body will have
amendments that will be made in order and will have an opportunity to
present their ideas how to better sustain military readiness. That is
as it should be.
But there are members of the Committee on Armed Services who belong
to other committees of jurisdiction. In those committees of
jurisdiction where few hearings are held, no bipartisan effort is
undertaken, they are shut out just as well as the rest of the members
of the other jurisdictions.
Every jurisdiction in this Congress should be bipartisan and should
have input from both parties.
And I find it passing strange that I hear voices saying that
Democrats are obstructionists. Obstructionists of what? We can't even
get amendments made in order.
The only thing we have left that we can do is voice our objection to
the kind of closed process that we have witnessed during this
particular session of Congress. I hope the American public understands
how much their Members are being denied an opportunity to represent
them.
In terms of military readiness, the fiscal year 2019 NDAA dedicates
substantial funding toward cutting-edge military capabilities and
countering emerging threats through investments in cyber and space. The
bill includes funding for thousands of additional Active-Duty troops
and authorizes important funding for military construction and
infrastructure.
You know what it doesn't include and what it won't? There will be
Members who will offer that we have an Authorization for Use of
Military Force. Seventeen years have passed since we have had a new
Authorization for Use of Military Force. Congress should be declaring
war, not Presidents.
And it doesn't mean this President. The three or four before him
operating in this Congress were allowed to go forward under the aegis
of a 17-years-ago Authorization for Use of Military Force.
I was also pleased to see an improved commitment to Historically
Black Colleges and Universities in this year's package--schools that
are critical to ensuring a pipeline of highly skilled, diverse college
graduates into the United States Armed Forces.
This bill also takes significant steps to support our allies. It
provides $6.3 billion for the European Deterrence Initiative and
declares that it is the policy of the United States to counter Russian
influence campaigns.
The bill also imposes additional sanctions on Russia for violating
the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and it renews authority
in the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and fully funds
Israeli missile defense partnerships.
Madam Speaker, there is a lot that we can be proud of in this NDAA.
Unfortunately, despite all of these important investments, there are a
few provisions in this bill that raise serious concerns.
I have already spoken to the failure to pass a new military-use-of-
force measure. The one that we have is overly broad, and Members have
never had an opportunity to vote on a new one, even as we commit to
military engagements overseas.
Members on both sides of the aisle agree that an up-or-down vote on a
new AUMF is long overdue. So this is the time and the place to do it.
My colleague Barbara Lee, I am sure, and my colleague on the Rules
Committee Jim McGovern, I am sure, are going to offer measures that
will accomplish that.
I am also particularly alarmed that this legislation repeals the
Federal ban on military production of low-yield nuclear weapons.
Repealing this 15-year ban and pursuing low-yield nuclear warheads for
submarine-launched ballistic missiles will have significant
ramifications for global security.
Additionally, the NDAA includes a number of provisions targeting
DOD's fourth estate, which refers to nonmilitary portions of the
Department of Defense. These provisions affect human resources,
information systems, and other important services that affect the day-
to-day lives of our servicemen and -women as well as national
readiness.
Under this bill, these offices are targeted with an unrealistic and
unnecessary spending cut, setting up a sequester-like automatic 25
percent reduction to critical support functions.
Madam Speaker, this brings me to the second measure, the Economic
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.
Under the pretext of providing relief to community banks, this bill
rolls back important financial and consumer protections and provides a
giveaway to large Wall Street banks, allowing them to skirt enhanced
regulations aimed at protecting our economy from another financial
crisis.
The third measure, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan
McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act, exposes more patients to
harm and further sidelines the Federal Drug Administration's ability to
oversee investigational treatments than the bill passed by the House in
March.
In fact, during the Rules Committee hearing in March, Energy and
Commerce Committee Chair Walden and Health Subcommittee Chair and
fellow Rules Committee member Burgess had reservations about this
measure, which is why the House took up the more narrowly focused bill
in the first place.
Madam Speaker, last Friday, there was another school shooting. Again,
America watched in horror as students and teachers fled their
classrooms from a murderous gun rampage. Again, community leaders and
government officials offered thoughts and prayers. Yesterday, we
offered a moment of silence. Again, calls for stricter gun control laws
and heightened school security returned.
We all know that this will happen again to our young people. And for
that reason, I can state emphatically and without fear of having to
correct the Record that the Republican leadership of this House has not
only abdicated their responsibility to the American people and our
children but their common sense as well.
No other country in the world has as many guns, as many homicides, or
as many mass shootings as we do. There is simply no more time to waste.
We need to be considering a ban on bump stocks. We need to be
considering a ban on assault weapons.
And don't anybody tell me we can't ban assault weapons. We did that
when I first came to Congress. We banned assault weapons, and the kind
of mass killings we have seen went down after we did that.
We need to be considering protective orders allowing people to
petition the court to temporarily remove firearms from an individual in
crisis. We have seen evidence of that working when Florida passed its
law. One week after that law went into effect, a person had his guns
removed who would have been a harm to himself and to others.
We need to be considering comprehensive background checks, and we
can't stop there. We need to increase access to mental health services.
We need to eliminate the feeling in this country that seeking help
carries with it some sort of stigma.
We need to learn to recognize the danger signs and offer a clear
course of action. We need to teach students about conflict resolution.
And we need to do more about civility in this Nation, in this House.
And we should be its leaders, not standing and offering a moment of
silence and returning to do nothing, as we have done, shooting after
shooting, mass shooting after mass shooting, in this country.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bergman), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. BERGMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the fiscal
year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.
I want to thank Chairman Thornberry for all his leadership on this
bill.
Providing for our Nation's common defense is our constitutional duty.
As a retired lieutenant general in the Marine Corps, I know that
certainty from Washington, especially on this side of the river, is
critical for the military to carry out its missions. Our men and women
in uniform need consistency and reliability over the long term to meet
complex threats, changing threats, in all corners of the world.
This bill increases resources for readiness training and upgrades
essential
[[Page H4296]]
equipment to provide our warfighters with increased capabilities on
land, at sea, and in the air.
I also want to thank the committee for including report language
highlighting the critical role that the Soo Locks play in our national
security. The Soo Locks, located in my home district, are a single
point of failure in a multibillion-dollar supply chain and a potential
target for disruptive activities. Any unscheduled outing of the locks
would threaten our national economy and, in turn, our national
security.
Again, I thank the chairman for all his hard work on this defense
authorization. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bill.
{time} 1145
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Ted Lieu), a member of the Foreign Affairs and
Judiciary Committees, to discuss the commonsense issues that we all
care about but have been blocked during this closed Congress.
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Madam Speaker, Paul Ryan promised regular
order when he took over the speakership. He has broken that promise
repeatedly. We have voted on bills here on the floor that violated the
standard committee process.
The majority has employed a technique called marshal law that allows
them to bring up bills with little to no notice, and now we know we
have the most closed Congress in U.S. history. The majority has blocked
all amendments on most bills. That is a disgraceful way to run the
people's House.
Twenty-three amendments of mine have been blocked--simple amendments.
One of them basically says, hey, the Federal Government should invest
more in cybersecurity. We can't even get a debate on that.
Really?
Another amendment I have deals with anticorruption, and whether you
have a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent, you don't want
corruption. You don't want members of the executive branch making money
off the taxpayer's dime.
So one of these amendments basically says we are not going to
reimburse the President or other members when they go and spend money
on Mar-a-Lago or other Trump properties and have the Federal Government
pay money there because that flows to the President or his immediate
family. Can't even get a vote on that. Why? Because the Republican
leadership knows it would pass.
We need to open up this Congress and have a debate. We came here to
debate ideas, not to block them.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Messer).
Mr. MESSER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this historic
bipartisan compromise that rolls back some of the most harmful policies
from the Dodd-Frank Act and will help grow our economy.
The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act
includes bipartisan legislation that I authored to help communities in
Indiana and across the United States save money on roads, bridges, and
schools. It reverses a backward banking rule that gave foreign
countries an advantage over American cities and towns. This will drive
down the cost of borrowing and make it cheaper for cities and towns to
finance local infrastructure projects.
Ultimately, this bill saves taxpayer dollars. That is why it has
passed the House twice. It is supported by numerous advocacy groups,
and my good friend, the State treasurer of Indiana, Kelly Mitchell. I
applaud this bill's inclusion in this banking reform package, and I
urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Foreign Affairs and
Judiciary Committees, to discuss the commonsense issues that we all
care about but that have been blocked during this closed Congress.
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We pride ourselves on being the most deliberative body on the planet,
and all of us come here to contribute our best ideas to improve the
lives of the American people.
You wonder why this place doesn't work? It is the whole set of
exclusion of ideas from nearly half this body.
I am one of those people who has offered just about 25 amendments
that were blocked by the Republicans. What are they afraid of? Debate
your ideas. Make your arguments. Vote. Be held accountable.
Some of the things they blocked, the amendments I offered: an
amendment to increase student loan interest tax deductions in our tax
bill; a provision to end tax breaks for companies that ship American
jobs overseas; an amendment to increase funding to combat violent
extremism; and an amendment to increase funding for fire departments in
the SAFER grants. Those are just four examples.
Their practice, they marked an important moment in history, not a
good moment: the most closed Congress in the history of the United
States, excluding from consideration debate, argument, and
accountability.
Vote on these things so the American people know where you stand.
That is what we have here, over 1,000 ideas proffered by Democrats that
our Republican colleagues won't even bring to the floor for
consideration so the American people know where they stand on a range
of important issues.
This is a dark day for Congress, the most closed Congress in our
history. It means the voices of the American people as reflected in
nearly half of this body are not being considered, debated, and voted
upon by the Congress.
It is wrong. It is negatively impacting the lives of the American
people. There are real consequences. It is not just that we want our
own amendments considered. It is because we understand it will benefit
the American people.
I urge my colleagues to have some self-reflection on what they are
doing here.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds for purposes of
rebuttal before I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Budd).
As a point of situational awareness, as of last week, in this
Congress, over 1,000 amendments have been heard on the House floor: 47
percent Democratic, 41 percent Republican, 15 percent bipartisan.
For a point of reference, the last term that Nancy Pelosi was Speaker
of the House, the 111th Congress, less than 1,000 amendments for the
entire Congress. We passed that milestone prior to last week. We will
continue to hear amendments on the floor.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Budd).
Mr. BUDD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Today is a great day for North Carolina's community financial
institutions, small business innovators, and, most importantly, our
economy. I rise today in strong support of this rule that will bring a
much-needed regulatory relief bill, S. 2155, to the House floor.
The most damaging aspect of the Dodd-Frank bill was the additional
and unnecessary regulatory burden placed on community financial
institutions, and because of this, we have seen American consumers and
small businesses struggle to get the credit and the support that they
need. Economic growth is held back because of Dodd-Frank, but I am
happy to report that relief is on the way with the passage of S. 2155.
Madam Speaker, while I urge adoption of this rule and urge passage of
this bill, I also look forward to working with our chairman and our
leader, Jeb Hensarling, Senator Mike Crapo, and Senate Democrats to
craft a package of bills that focuses on capital formation. I offer any
support I can to help bring that collection of bills across the finish
line as well. I urge adoption of the rule, Madam Speaker.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, just to respond briefly to Mr. Burgess,
it is a good thing that they made a handful of amendments in order that
added up to 1,000. If we went through it, they would look like studies
and things that were not significant; but when it came to the
healthcare measures or when it came to tax reform, not one amendment by
a Democrat was made in order.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut
[[Page H4297]]
(Ms. DeLauro), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee, to
discuss the significance of this record-breaking closed Congress and
real people affected by these closed rules.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, this week, the Republican majority won
the honor of having run the most closed Congress in American history:
84 closed rules, zero open rules.
What does that mean? It means that they blocked us from fully
debating or amending legislation, prohibiting us from fully giving our
constituents a voice in this Congress.
Why are we here? Our constituents sent us here to be able to debate
issues and to vote on those issues.
Two weeks ago, the majority blocked my amendment to ensure equal pay
for equal work. Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963 to end
unequal wages. Yet, in 2018, women still earn about 80 cents, on
average, to a man's dollar. The gap is worse for women of color.
A woman working full-time will lose $400,000 over the course of her
career. African American women lose $840,000. Latinas will lose over $1
million.
Since women are the sole or co-breadwinner in half of the families
with children, our Nation's families and our economy suffers, which is
why I offered the Paycheck Fairness Act as an amendment. It toughens
remedies in the Equal Pay Act to help America's working women fight
wage discrimination and receive a full paycheck. They blocked it.
The strength of this institution is its potential to make a
difference in the lives of the American people. That is vital when the
biggest economic challenge is jobs that do not pay them enough to live
on.
We cannot help raise wages, improve education, or fix crumbling
infrastructure when this majority, more than any in American history,
has closed the House to debate and to amendments. They closed it to
action. It is unacceptable. The American people deserve better.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess) for yielding this time to debate these important measures.
This is a historic moment here in the House. Today, we will be
sending the most significant financial regulatory relief legislation to
the President's desk in more than a decade. I am proud to have been
part of this effort, and I thank all of my colleagues who helped get us
to this moment.
Madam Speaker, for the past 3\1/2\ years I served in this House, I
have been telling the same story over and over again:
My home State of Georgia lost 70 banks during the financial crisis,
the most of any State in the Nation. Today, 52 of Georgia's counties do
not have a community bank headquartered there, and three of Georgia's
counties have no bank branch whatsoever. Why? Because of excessive
regulatory burden placed on small community banks and credit unions by
previous legislative action and through overreach by regulators.
Today, we are taking a major step toward reversing that trend by
taking bold action and by sending progrowth regulatory relief to small
community banks and credit unions to the President's desk. This bill
will help ensure that community banks and credit unions will no longer
be crushed under the weight of regulations that do not distinguish
between them and the largest financial institutions.
Much of this bill originally came from House bills--bipartisan, I may
add. This moment is an example of the legislative process working well
in a strong bipartisan fashion.
I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time both parties
have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Love). The gentleman from Florida has
10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 13 minutes
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a member of the Financial Services
Committee, to discuss the significance of this record-breaking closed
rule and the real people affected by the GOP shutting down our
democratic process.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I am here to protest what has been the most closed
Congress in American history. I know the other side will recite the
number of amendments that have been allowed, but the fact remains, this
is the most closed Congress we have ever had: 84 closed rules and not
one open rule.
We are sent here by our constituents to advocate for their interests,
and in the minority, one of the few tools we have is the ability to
offer amendments and have those arguments heard on the floor of this
House. Knowing that we may not win every fight, knowing that we may not
win a majority on each idea, we ought to at least allow the power of a
good idea to have a fair hearing.
Twenty-eight times I have offered amendments, thoughtful amendments
that were crafted with the idea that we could actually improve policy,
and 28 times those amendments have been blocked.
These are not messaging amendments, just to give two examples:
One would have increased the amount of funding available to local
governments that are struggling to improve their drinking water
systems. Think about my hometown of Flint and the hundreds of other
communities that would have benefited from that.
Another would have directed the Federal Government to do more to deal
with this issue of PFAS, perfluorinated chemicals, that is poisoning
groundwater. In fact, while the EPA is having a conversation today
about this very dangerous chemical that is affecting human life in this
country, I offered an opportunity for Congress to do something.
Why didn't we do it? Because up in the Rules Committee, it was
blocked.
The ideas ought to have a chance on the floor of the House. That is
what we are sent here to do. We ought to open this Congress up.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this historic
bipartisan legislation. This progrowth bill is thanks to all the
hardworking members of the House Financial Services Committee, and I am
proud to have contributed to this meaningful reform.
S. 2155 will reduce regulatory burdens hindering Main Street by
providing job creators with resources they need to grow their
businesses and, frankly, their banks. Under Dodd-Frank, big banks have
gotten bigger and small banks have become fewer. Our economy is not
well served when small banks are handicapped.
As a former manufacturer, I understand the toll excessive regulatory
burdens can have on small businesses. That is why I am a proud
supporter of this legislation, and I look forward to seeing this bill
signed on the President's desk.
{time} 1200
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am
going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative
Sarbanes' bill, H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act.
This legislation would overhaul our broken campaign finance system
and return to a government of, by, and for the American people.
Madam 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. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who is a member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to
discuss our proposal.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, no matter what you think of S. 2155, one of the
underlying bills being considered today, it is not what a clear
majority of Americans want Congress to be doing.
Madam Speaker, nobody is coming up to us in townhalls and asking
Congress to deregulate large financial institutions. We are not going
to a fish fry
[[Page H4298]]
and hearing from people that they want us to dismantle important
consumer protections. And nobody at VFW halls, Rotary Clubs, and PTA
meetings thinks this bill should be Congress' priority.
The reason this bill is on the floor is that the power brokers on
Wall Street want it on the floor. It is their bill; it is not the
people's bill.
Our broken campaign finance system lies at the heart of this warped
political system, where big money calls the shots in Washington.
For starters, in this broken system, too many good candidates without
access to big money are effectively barred from running altogether.
Those who can make it through have to spend hours dialing for dollars,
courting a narrow slice of the Nation's elite, while high-powered
lobbyists and special interests are dictating legislation here in
Congress, just like today.
Most recently, these backroom power brokers used their influence to
demand billion-dollar handouts for the wealthiest 1 percent from the
GOP tax scam. Now they are once again tearing down critical rules to
protect our financial system from another economic collapse.
Today's previous question would force a vote on H.R. 20, the
Government by the People Act, a comprehensive reform of our campaign
finance system to combat the influence of big money in our politics,
raise civic engagement, and amplify the voice of everyday Americans.
This legislation would increase and multiply the power of small
donors in America, breaking candidates' reliance on the big money
crowd, giving candidates the resources they need to compete and win.
That way, when it comes time to make policy, the elected
representatives of the people will work on behalf of our constituents,
not the big money donors.
Madam Speaker, the American people are sick of getting a raw deal
from Washington. That is why Democrats are offering a better deal for
our democracy: a comprehensive reform agenda to get rid of the
corruption that has led to such a dysfunctional political system here
in Washington. We will deliver real reforms that will restore a
government of, by, and for the people.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).
Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of S. 2155, the Economic
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.
This pro-growth package provides the desperately needed regulatory
relief to our community financial institutions while providing
consumers with greater options for accessing credit.
For too long, we have seen many of the onerous regulatory burdens
restrict banks and credit unions from serving the needs of their
communities. After 8 years of failed economic policies, which led to
the slowest, weakest recovery in the modern era, the economy is finally
starting to take off, and consumer optimism is increasing each and
every day each.
As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, we remain
committed to passing legislation designed to roll back some of the most
burdensome provisions found in the Dodd-Frank Act.
This legislation was intended to rein in large financial
institutions, while harming our local community banks and credit
unions. These increased regulations created a higher cost of business
and diminished credit availability.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Palmer). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Frankly, the Economic Growth, Regulatory
Relief, and Consumer Protection Act tailors the rules to the size and
risk profile rather than imposing sweeping changes to our consumer
financial institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their work on this important
legislation, and I urge passage on the rule and on the final vote.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), a member of the Financial Services
Committee, to continue the discussion of commonsense issues that we all
care about but have been blocked during this closed Congress.
Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and
distinguished Member of Congress, Mr. Hastings, for providing me the
opportunity to speak today on behalf of deported veterans.
Mr. Speaker, setting the record for the most closed Congress is not a
proud accomplishment. Our job is in our title: Representatives. We
represent the American people.
According to the most recent Gallup poll, 78 percent of Americans
disapprove of the way Congress is handling itself. Can you blame them?
When I came to Congress, I heard from constituents and Americans
across the country about the injustice of deported veterans.
I heard from Arnold Giammarco from Connecticut, who was deported to
Italy after coming to the United States at the age of 4 and honorably
serving our country.
I heard from Gerardo Armijo, a Purple Heart recipient in my district,
who was brought to the United States as an infant. He served two tours
in Iraq, came home honorably discharged with PTSD after he suffered
major injuries from an IED, and failed to get the care that he needed
from the Veterans Administration. Due to drugs and alcohol, he found
himself in some trouble and is now deported.
These stories are flooding in from all corners of the globe. We are
deporting honorably discharged veterans after promising them
citizenship. This is a disgrace.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), my good friend, a former member of
the Committee on Rules who is now a member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, to discuss the commonsense issues that we all care about
that have been blocked during this closed Congress.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is the most closed Congress in my lifetime. Eighty-
four closed rules. That means we don't debate on the floor.
That is also on top of the fact that we don't debate in committee.
The tax bill that was passed out of the Ways and Means Committee had no
discussion, no debate, and no publication until it was brought up for a
vote. The same thing is true for the healthcare bill.
We need to be debating things.
One of them was allowing citizens to import safe prescription drugs
from Canada at a lower cost when those prescriptions were manufactured
in FDA-approved facilities. I offered that amendment, and we were
denied the opportunity to vote on that.
Mr. Speaker, had we been allowed to vote on it, it would have passed,
and Americans would have saved billions of dollars--and I said the word
``billions''--on safe prescription medication if we could crack the
lock that Pharma has on price gouging for pharmaceuticals.
We could do that if the majority would allow us to vote on amendments
that pursue the opportunities that Americans need to be safe and
secure.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the
Committee on Rules, my good friend, who also serves on the Committee on
Agriculture, to discuss the significance of this record-breaking closed
Congress and real people affected by these closed rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day, a very sad day, for
this institution. Today, it becomes official that this will become the
most closed Congress ever in the history of the United States.
You heard why this matters. You heard from some of my colleagues here
today that important issues, issues that the American people care
about, like ensuring clean water for children, like high ethics in the
executive branch, like cybersecurity, like banning bump stocks, like
protecting our
[[Page H4299]]
veterans, or like protecting Medicare or Social Security--these
amendments are routinely denied. We are shut out.
Millions of young people all over the country protested for us to do
something to combat gun violence, and we have done nothing. We have
done nothing in this Chamber other than a moment of silence.
The frustration of these young people is compounded by the fact that
we can't even bring an amendment to the floor to ban bump stocks or to
expand background checks or to ban assault weapons. They don't want to
let anything come to the floor. It is outrageous.
And for anybody to stand up here and defend this process, to somehow
normalize this process, give me a break. This closed process is
something you would see in Russia or Turkey or in some other
authoritarian government, not in the people's House.
This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world.
What is so radical about deliberating every once in a while?
We have a report that we are releasing today. It is 230 pages. Go to
the Rules Committee Democrats' web page, and you can read all about how
there has been a deliberate attempt to shut out the voices of the
American people.
Enough. This is not the way this place is supposed to be run.
If Democrats are given the privilege to control this House again, I
will tell you, we need to be more accommodating, we need to be more
open, and we need to allow this place to be a deliberative body where
important issues get debated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we need to fix problems in this country.
We could pass a bill to protect the Dreamers in a nanosecond if the
Republican majority would allow us to bring an amendment to the floor,
but they won't. Why? Because they are afraid that we are going to win.
They don't want a fair fight. They want a system that is always
rigged in their favor. Well, that is not democracy. That is not the way
this place is supposed to be run.
If we have a more accommodating approach to legislating, then I
guarantee you that the polarization will be less. You will have more
bills that will pass in a bipartisan way.
And, by the way, it is not just Democrats that get shut out; 180
Republicans have been shut out of the amendment process as well.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. McGOVERN. The sad thing is that they just go along to get along,
and they are complicit in this most closed process in U.S. history.
Enough. Enough. We deserve better, the American people deserve
better, my constituents deserve better, and your constituents deserve
better. This place needs to be run differently.
Mr. Speaker, vote against this rule.
And I say to my Republican friends: Have the guts to stand with us
and vote ``no'' on this closed process.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes for the
purposes of a response.
I would, of course, lead with the observation that those who do not
remember their history are doomed to repeat it. I don't remember
precisely who said it, but I think it bears repeating today.
In the 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats allowed less
than a thousand amendments to be considered on the floor.
Of the bills that were considered at that time, the Dodd-Frank bill
was one of those bills. The amendments that were blocked by the
Democrats in the 111th Congress were precisely the type of amendments
that we are now considering today in the bill to alleviate some of the
obstructions, some of the gridlock that has occurred with our credit
unions and smaller banks--things that people have been asking us for
repeatedly for the last 5 to 7 years.
Mr. Speaker, the number of amendments that were blocked in the 111th
Congress was significant. We have a chance today to undo some of that
process, and I believe we ought to take that opportunity. As of 1\1/2\
weeks ago, over a thousand amendments had been made in order in this
Congress.
The Committee on Rules is run differently today than it was in the
111th Congress. It used to be that you had to submit 45 copies of an
amendment and you had a time limit by which you had to submit those
amendments. You can submit amendments late now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to myself.
Chairman Sessions has been very accommodating in allowing us to bring
amendments to the Committee on Rules late.
There is no clock in the Committee on Rules, as the gentleman well
knows. You can talk as long as you want in the Committee on Rules about
your amendments, and you can offer whatever amendments you prefer.
The process is not ideal, but it is important that we move forward
with these important reforms that people have been asking us for years.
And, today, that day is at hand, and those reforms will be delivered.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1215
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend from Texas, we
don't want to talk. That is what you guys want to do. We want to
legislate.
The fact is that the majority of bills that you have brought to this
House floor have been closed. You have more closed rules than any other
Congress in the history of the United States of America. How anybody
can defend that with a straight face is beyond me.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from Texas
that I am prepared to close if he is.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, seeing no more speakers on my side, I am
prepared to close.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the American people to look at this chart. Rules
under Speaker Ryan: structured rules, 44 percent; closed rules, 56
percent; open rules, zero. That is what we are talking about.
As with all bipartisan measures, this NDAA has many things to like
and some provisions that are causes for concern, but it did demonstrate
that there can be bipartisan cooperation in order to safeguard our
national security, and that should be the case in every one of the
jurisdictional undertakings here in Congress.
I commend the committee for once again tackling such a major
legislative package, but sadly, this approach is far and away the
exception to the rule around here.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have a moral responsibility to address gun
violence in this country. Gun violence has overtaken our country. We
have a moral responsibility to every child who now attends school
thinking about, not if a school shooting will happen, but when it will
happen to them. This responsibility is not owed to them at our leisure,
it is not owed to them next month or next week or tomorrow, but today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I again want to reiterate, the Rules Committee has spent
hours listening and considering Member testimony. We have welcomed over
225 Members to testify during this Congress, and roughly 493 times have
made over 1,000 amendments in order, including 474 from Democrats, 383
from Republicans, and over 150 which were bipartisan amendments.
The rule today is important, three important pieces of legislation.
The National Defense Authorization Act. Our number one priority when
we are elected to this body is the defense
[[Page H4300]]
of our Nation, and we are authorizing that expenditure today.
The bill to reform the financial services institutions is one that
has been requested by small banks and credit unions for years, and this
body is today prepared to deliver.
Then finally, the Right to Try Act. The President stood in the State
of the Union message and said that it was not correct that people had
to go to other countries in order to get the medicines that they needed
to prolong their lives. He wanted that to end, and today we are taking
the step to end that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the
three underlying pieces of legislation
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 905 offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 8. 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.
20) to reform the financing of congressional elections by
broadening participation by small dollar donors, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committees on House Administration, Energy and
Commerce, and Ways and Means. 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. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 20.
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. BURGESS. 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. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on:
Adoption of House Resolution 905, if ordered, and
Approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 184, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 210]
YEAS--222
Abraham
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
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.
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
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
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
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--184
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
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
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
[[Page H4301]]
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
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
O'Halleran
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--21
Allen
Black
Brown (MD)
Burgess
DesJarlais
Deutch
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gaetz
Garamendi
Higgins (LA)
Hoyer
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pearce
Richmond
Rogers (KY)
Roskam
Speier
Stivers
Walz
{time} 1244
Mses. MENG, KELLY of Illinois, and VELAZQUEZ changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 210.
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. HASTINGS. 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 227,
noes 180, not voting 20, as follows
[Roll No. 211]
AYES--227
Abraham
Aderholt
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
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)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
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
NOES--180
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
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
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
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
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Allen
Bass
Black
Brown (MD)
DesJarlais
Deutch
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gaetz
Garamendi
Gohmert
Higgins (LA)
Hoyer
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pearce
Rogers (KY)
Speier
Stivers
Walz
{time} 1252
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.
____________________