[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5667-H5673]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6157, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2083,
ENDANGERED SALMON AND FISHERIES PREDATION PREVENTION ACT
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 961 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 961
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. 6157) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, 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 Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 115-77 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. Points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: page
86, line 1, through page 86, line 7. No further amendment to
the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed
in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution and pro forma amendments
described in section 3 of this resolution. Each further
amendment printed in part A of the report 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 except as
provided by section 3 of this resolution, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
such further amendments are waived. 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. 2. 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.
2083) to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to
reduce predation on endangered Columbia River salmon and
other nonlisted species, 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 Natural Resources. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-79. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment
may be offered 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. All
points of order against such amendments 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. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment
in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text.
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.
Sec. 3. During consideration of H.R. 6157 for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 4. (a) During consideration of H.R. 6157, it shall
not be in order to consider an amendment proposing both a
decrease in an appropriation designated pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 and an increase in an appropriation not
so designated, or vice versa. (b) This paragraph
[[Page H5669]]
shall not apply to an amendment between the Houses.
Sec. 5. House Resolution 952 is laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. CHENEY. 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
Ms. CHENEY. 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
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution
961, which provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2083,
the Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act and a
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 6157, the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019.
The rule makes in order amendments for both bills, including three
amendments offered by the minority to H.R. 2083 and several amendments
offered by members of both sides of the aisle for H.R. 6157.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I expect that we will consider a rule
tomorrow to provide for the consideration of additional amendments to
H.R. 6157.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2083, the Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation
Prevention Act, authored by my colleague, Ms. Herrera Beutler of
Washington, clarifies the authority and streamlines the process to
manage sea lion populations that are decimating ESA-listed salmon,
steelhead, and other non-listed species, such as white sturgeon in the
lower Columbia River. It also provides ESA-listed salmon in the lower
Columbia River a habitat where they can recover while controlling the
stocks of sea lions on a limited basis. The bill will benefit the
residents of the Pacific Northwest who have invested millions of
dollars to protect, restore, and enhance salmon and other endangered
species on the Columbia River.
In my home State of Wyoming, Mr. Speaker, we are far too familiar
with the abuses of the ESA. The goal of the Endangered Species Act
should be to recover species, not place restrictive and unnecessary
burdens and protections on threatened and endangered species in
perpetuity.
While the ESA process as a whole must be reformed, this bill provides
a targeted approach to allow the citizens of the Pacific Northwest to
achieve the original intent of the Endangered Species Act, which is to
recover species. This is a good bill. I support its inclusion in this
rule, and I urge its adoption.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for consideration of H.R.
6157, the fiscal year 2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
authored by my colleague from Texas (Ms. Granger).
Mr. Speaker, providing the funding needed by our men and women in
uniform to defend this great Nation is by far the most important
responsibility we have as Members of the United States Congress.
For far too long, Congress has failed in this regard. For nearly a
decade, we have forced our men and women in uniform to operate under
continuing resolutions and the devastation of sequestration.
In this Congress, Mr. Speaker, we have begun to change that. For
fiscal year '18, we provided $700 billion to begin to rebuild our
military from the cuts and misguided policy of the Obama years. But our
job is far from done. Rebuilding our military and providing the
resources needed will require dedicated efforts for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, we simply must stop forcing our men and women in uniform
and their families to pay the price for the dysfunction of the
congressional budget process.
Mr. Speaker, we know that this House is not the problem. In fact,
since Republicans took control of the House in 2011, we have never
failed to pass a defense appropriations bill on time and often with
large, bipartisan majorities.
With this week's consideration of H.R. 6157, we in this House intend
to keep that streak alive. However, as we have too often found, the
Senate is unable or unwilling to complete their work, and our men and
women in uniform suffer.
{time} 1230
Secretary Mattis spoke late last year about this issue when he
released the National Defense Strategy. He said: ``As hard as the last
16 years have been on our military, no enemy in the field has done more
to harm the readiness of the U.S. military than the combined impact of
the Budget Control Act's defense spending cuts, worsened by us
operating, 9 of the last 10 years, under continuing resolutions,
wasting copious amounts of precious taxpayer dollars.''
Secretary Mattis then went on to say that: ``The consequences of not
providing a budget are clear: Without a sustained budget, ships will
not receive the required maintenance to put to sea; the ships already
at sea will be extended outside of port; aircraft will remain on the
ground, their pilots not at the sharpest edge; and, eventually,
ammunition, training, and manpower will not be sufficient to deter
war.''
H.R. 6157 is a bipartisan bill that provides the resources necessary
to continue the job of rebuilding our military. The bill provides our
troops with the highest pay raise they have received in 9 years. It
continues restoring readiness through increases in the operation and
maintenance accounts, including providing needed flight time and battle
training, as well as equipment and facility maintenance.
This bill also provides procurement funding to ensure our troops have
the tools and equipment they need, and increases the funding for
research and development for future needs.
We must, as General Dunford said in front of the Armed Services
Committee earlier this year, ``ensure we never send America's sons and
daughters into a fair fight.'' We need to ensure that they are armed to
prevail every time.
Mr. Speaker, we now face a more complex and dangerous set of threats
than at any time since the end of World War II. Passing H.R. 6157 will
help put us on the path we need to be on to restore the readiness of
our military so we can deter and, if necessary, defeat those threats.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we must end this cycle and this decade of
budget dysfunction. We must repeal the Budget Control Act and provide
the stable resources our military needs, if we are to continue to
maintain an Armed Forces that is second to none. H.R. 6157 is an
important, bipartisan, and necessary step down that path.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule to allow
consideration of H.R. 6157, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, my friend from Wyoming, for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I will proceed to
debate the rule for H.R. 2083 and H.R. 6157.
The first measure, H.R. 2083, in my opinion, is an overly broad bill
that will lead to the needless slaughter of more than 1,000 sea lions
without addressing the serious problems facing our country's endangered
salmon stocks.
Thirteen populations of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River
are listed under the Endangered Species Act, with their greatest threat
to extinction coming from deadbeat dams, habitat loss, and climate
change. This bill does nothing to address those issues and will not
lead to the recovery of the salmon populations.
Mr. Speaker, in a change of pace for this Republican-controlled
Congress, H.R. 6157, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2019, is a largely bipartisan bill. Totaling $674.6
billion, $20 billion above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level, H.R.
6157, as my colleague said, increases military pay by 2.6 percent and
funds military procurement, readiness, and research and development.
The legislation, in a break from the strategy implemented by the
Republican Trump administration, actually works to keep our commitments
to our allies and provides resources for the
[[Page H5670]]
European Reassurance Initiative to counter Russian aggression,
continues our support for Ukraine, and fulfills our obligations to
Israel with funding for the U.S.-Israel joint anti-tunneling research
technology initiative and the Israeli Missile Defense Cooperative
program.
H.R. 6157 also provides new funding for Department of Defense schools
and Historically Black Colleges, Universities, and Minority-Serving
Institutions, partnerships that are critical for preserving readiness
into the future by investing in our servicemembers today.
I was also pleased that the committee included parts of the Families
of Fallen Servicemembers First Act in this bill, which will ensure that
families of fallen servicemembers can always access the immediate death
gratuities they are entitled to, even in the event of a lapse of
government funding.
Politics should never be a factor during such an unimaginable time,
and yet that has been the case in each of the last three government
shutdowns. I commend my colleagues, Representatives Gerry Connolly and
Tom Rooney, for taking on this critically important issue.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this bill does a lot of good. I wish
that bipartisan legislation like this was the norm. I congratulate the
committee for working together in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that
our country's security needs are met without needlessly injecting
partisan fights into the process.
I would, however, be remiss if I did not mention the omission of any
language pertaining to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military
Force, known colloquially as the 2001 AUMF.
We continue to give Presidents a blank check to wage war. Let me
repeat that: We continue to give Presidents--not President Trump, not
President Obama, not President Bush, not President Clinton--a blank
check to wage war. Since the 2001 AUMF was enacted, it has been cited
as the statutory authority for military actions more than 40 times in
at least 18 countries. That is 18 countries, Mr. Speaker, using an
authorization passed 17 years ago.
I and other Members, like Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman
Jim McGovern, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, have been
relentless on this issue, relentless on the need for this body to take
its constitutional duties seriously and discuss how and if we will
authorize the executive branch to wage war.
In fact, last year, the Appropriations Committee adopted an amendment
by Congresswoman Lee to begin the process of repealing and replacing
the AUMF with an updated measure. In an underhanded move, the Rules
Committee stripped the provisions in an undemocratic and underhanded
way. Since then, Congress has done nothing to reassert its
constitutional authority to decide when and where to commit our troops
overseas.
I don't know why it is that this continues, and I don't know what it
is going to take for us to have a vote on a new AUMF, but I think that
the people of this great country deserve to know why House Republicans
are protecting the President's ability to wage unchecked war around the
globe. I felt the same way when President Obama was in office, as well
as previous Presidents.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Byrne), my friend and colleague on both the Armed Services
Committee and the Rules Committee.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
appreciate her steadfast leadership on behalf of our Nation's
servicemen and -women.
Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of a long-needed rebuilding of our
Nation's military, and this funding bill will ensure the rebuilding
process continues.
I have spoken on this floor many times about the readiness crisis
facing our military. We are finally getting our planes back in the air
and troops who are fully prepared to deploy. This readiness crisis
hurts our overall national security. But, Mr. Speaker, it also puts our
servicemen and -women at great risk.
Last year, we lost four times as many servicemembers in training
accidents as we lost in combat. We owe it to these men and women to do
everything in our power to avoid more of these accidents. That duty
requires consistent and robust funding for all aspects of our defense.
I am pleased to say that this funding bill builds on the progress
made over the last 2 years, and I am proud to support the Defense
Appropriations bill and this rule.
This bill sets aside $674.6 billion for the Department of Defense,
which is consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act that
passed out of this body earlier this year.
Importantly, the bill will help us recruit and retain the greatest
fighting force on the face of the Earth. That includes full funding for
a 2.6 percent pay raise for the military and an increase in overall end
strength.
The bill makes much-needed investments in training and equipment
acquisition to ensure our men and women in uniform have the resources
and tools they need to safely and successfully defend or country.
As vice chair of the House Seapower and Projection Forces
Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, I am pleased to see the
bill make progress toward rebuilding a 355-ship Navy fleet. The bill
funds the construction of 12 new Navy ships, including three littoral
combat ships.
The bill also funds the procurement of additional F-35s, F/A-18 Super
Hornets, Black Hawk helicopters, Abrams tanks, and C-130J aircraft,
among many others.
Given the current threat environment, the bill invests in our
Nation's missile defense programs and ensures support for some of our
key allies around the globe.
Mr. Speaker, peace through strength should always be the position of
the United States. There is no greater deterrent to war than a strong,
fully equipped U.S. military.
I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and her subcommittee for their
work on this legislation, and I look forward to a strong bipartisan
vote later this week.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Ranking Member Nadler's bill, H.R.
6135, the Keep Families Together Act, of which I am an original
cosponsor. This much-needed proposal would prohibit the Department of
Homeland Security from separating children from their families, except
in extraordinary circumstances, and limit the criminal prosecution of
asylum seekers.
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. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question so that we may protect these innocent
children.
Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague that I have no further
speakers and am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close as well, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
go forward now with my closing.
Last week, we saw Republicans fail to protect Dreamers. These are
young people who, in many cases, have known no other country than the
United States. It is, like it is for you and for me, quite simply,
their home. They are, but for one piece of paper, just as American as
anyone in this room. Yet my friends across the aisle take pains to
denigrate and belittle Dreamers.
{time} 1245
We witnessed Republican leadership bring anti-immigrant legislation
to the House floor that did nothing to solve the heartbreaking
situation for children and their parents on the southern border. In
fact, the bills pushed by my Republican friends would perpetuate child
detention, further tarnishing our Nation's values.
Democrats have put forward multiple bipartisan proposals to address
the need for immigration reform in our
[[Page H5671]]
country and, now, for the need to address the completely self-made
Republican crisis at our border involving the separation of infants and
toddlers from their mothers and fathers. All of them have been
dismissed out of hand.
If my Republican colleagues can move past throwing red meat to their
base and are willing to work in a serious and bipartisan manner to
address the issues in our immigration system, then know that Democrats
are ready to work with you. All you need to do is stand up to the
extreme faction in your party and finally work with us.
Let me say something else, finally, about that. The current occupant
of the White House continues to say that Democrats believe in open
borders and crime. I know I don't believe in open borders, and I know
that I have spent a career in the field of law in trying to assist, not
only my community, but here in our Congress, countless communities, to
avoid criminal elements and crime in a variety of places throughout our
country.
I don't think it is right just to make political points at the
expense of something that is so critical, and I deem it wrong that it
is said that Democrats favor open borders and crime. That is just the
farthest thing from the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's commitment to coming to some
sort of a resolution on the challenges we are facing at our border.
I think it is crucially important that we secure our border, and I
respect very much my colleague from the Rules Committee. I appreciate
that, perhaps, he doesn't believe in open borders, but certainly, Mr.
Speaker, we have seen across the country, including most recently a
Democratic candidate for Governor of New York referring to our ICE
officials as ``terrorists.''
That is the kind of rhetoric that really does a huge disservice and,
frankly, is shameful to those who are making sure that our borders are
secure, to those trying to protect us. We are a Nation of laws, and we
have got to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that we enforce those laws.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a benefit and a positive move for
the citizens across this country if both sides of the aisle were able
to come together on this. Unfortunately, we have gotten into a
situation where there are a number of people on the other side of the
aisle who believe we ought to have open borders, and we simply can't
accept that and can't defend that. We have got to make sure we secure
our borders, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there is a statue that stands at the Antietam National
Battlefield, which is just about 70 miles from here. Antietam, as
Members know, was the site of the single bloodiest day in American
history. Close to 23,000 Americans were killed, wounded, or lost that
day.
The statue, Mr. Speaker, is a statue of a Union soldier that
overlooks the graves of the fallen. There is an inscription on the
statue which says, ``Not for themselves, but for their country.''
It should be a reminder to all of us, regardless of party, Mr.
Speaker, that the ultimate sacrifice has been paid by so many Americans
in every single battle of this Republic's history, that those who fight
to secure our freedom do it willingly. They do it by saying they are
willing, as Secretary Mattis has said, to write a blank check to the
Republic.
They do it to defend everything we hold sacred and, indeed, Mr.
Speaker, to defend what we are doing here today, to defend our right to
debate, to defend our right to make laws, to defend our right to vote.
Those are the freedoms that are so crucial to the founding and the
establishment of this Republic. I am really proud, Mr. Speaker, that
with this Defense Appropriations bill, we were able to come together in
a bipartisan way to demonstrate our support for our men and women in
uniform.
What we need to do now, Mr. Speaker, is come together in a bicameral
way. We need to ensure that our actions are worthy of those men and
women on the front lines who are defending us every day.
We are considering a rule, Mr. Speaker, that will allow the debate
and the passage of this bill to fund our troops. For generations, young
Americans have--and again I am going to quote Secretary Mattis--``been
willing to shoulder the patriot's burden,'' to put on the cloth of our
Nation and to fight to defend all of us and all we hold sacred and
dear.
It is time for us in the United States Congress, the House and the
Senate, to shoulder our burden and to provide the funding our men and
women in uniform need.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Rules Committee, I also serve on the
Natural Resources Committee and the Armed Services Committee. Over the
course of the last 18 months that I have been in Congress, we have
received repeated testimony on the funding, modernization, and
readiness crisis facing the United States military.
I can say, Mr. Speaker, that no experience that I have had since I
have been a Member of this body has had a greater impact on me than
hearing from the Secretary of Defense, from the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, from all the combatant commanders, from all the
service Secretaries, time and time again, hearing them come before this
body and say that no foe in the field has done more damage to the
United States military than has the United States Congress.
I think it is really important for people to stop, think, and listen
to what that means. Our men and women in uniform and the leaders of our
military are making the case--an accurate case--that we have done more
damage than has any enemy.
We have absolutely got to stop that, Mr. Speaker. We have got to end
this process of sequestration. We have got to end the continuing
resolutions. We have got to end the dysfunctional budget process. We
simply cannot allow this situation to continue.
The threats that we face as a Nation are real, and they are growing.
Yet, as a Congress, we have continually forced our military to operate
on continuing resolutions of varying lengths for nearly a decade. We
have got to end this cycle of dysfunction. We cannot force our men and
women in uniform and their families to pay the price for our
dysfunction. That is simply reprehensible, Mr. Speaker.
I fully expect and hope that we will pass H.R. 6157 this week, and I
urge my Democratic colleagues in the Senate to forgo attempts to
filibuster this important bill and to work with Republicans in the
Senate and Members of this House to fulfill our most solemn and sacred
obligation, providing funding for the men and women in uniform who
volunteer to put their lives on the line to defend this great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule, H.R. 6157, and H.R.
2083.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 961 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. That 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. 6135) to limit the separation of families at or near
ports of entry. 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 chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary and the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Homeland Security. 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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 6135.
____
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
[[Page H5672]]
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.
Ms. CHENEY. 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 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4294.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 172, not voting 36, as follows:
[Roll No. 291]
YEAS--219
Abraham
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
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
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
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
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
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
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
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--172
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
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
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
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, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--36
Aderholt
Barletta
Black
Butterfield
Clarke (NY)
Cole
Crowley
Curtis
DeGette
Delaney
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Ellison
Engel
Frelinghuysen
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Gutierrez
Holding
Hoyer
Johnson, Sam
Lujan Grisham, M.
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Meeks
Payne
Polis
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rush
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Taylor
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (SC)
Yoder
{time} 1320
Mmes. TORRES and LAWRENCE, Mr. CONNOLLY, and Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on No. 291.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
[[Page H5673]]
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 222,
noes 172, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 292]
AYES--222
Abraham
Allen
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)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Granger
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)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
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
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
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
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--172
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
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
Courtney
Crist
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
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)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--33
Aderholt
Black
Carter (TX)
Clarke (NY)
Cole
Crowley
Curtis
DeGette
Delaney
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Ellison
Engel
Frelinghuysen
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Gutierrez
Hoyer
Johnson, Sam
Lujan Grisham, M.
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Meeks
Payne
Polis
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rush
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Taylor
Thompson (MS)
Wilson (SC)
Yoder
{time} 1329
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.
____________________