[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 147 (Wednesday, September 5, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7834-H7838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1635, EMPOWERING STUDENTS THROUGH 
 ENHANCED FINANCIAL COUNSELING ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
      H.R. 4606, ENSURING SMALL SCALE LNG CERTAINTY AND ACCESS ACT

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1049 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1049

       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. 1635) to amend the loan counseling 
     requirements under the Higher Education Act of 1965, 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 Education and the Workforce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
     in part A 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. 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. 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. 
     4606) to provide that applications under the Natural Gas Act 
     for the importation or exportation of small volumes of 
     natural gas shall be granted without modification or delay. 
     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 Energy and 
     Commerce. 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 the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee 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 committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized 
for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1215

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this resolution all 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. I yield the customary 
30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             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 
1049, which provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 4606, 
the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act, and a structured 
rule for H.R. 1635, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial 
Counseling Act. These bipartisan bills provide commonsense changes that 
will strengthen our economy by removing unnecessary regulatory burdens 
and improving financial counseling for our students.
  Student loan debt in our country hit a record high of $1.5 trillion 
in the first quarter of this year, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, both the 
number and size of student loans are increasing, while the repayment 
rates are decreasing. Students are not receiving the proper counseling 
when they enroll in Federal aid programs. This has the potential to 
cost them immense amounts of money.
  Right now, schools are only required to provide entry and exit 
financial counseling to students who receive Federal loans. Often, the 
counseling offered does not give students a realistic understanding of 
their anticipated finances and income during their studies and after 
graduation, or information about other Federal aid programs they could 
turn to before a private loan.
  By enhancing the financial counseling offered and expanding it to 
students who receive Pell grants and to the parents of students who 
take out Federal loans to pay for their children's education, students 
will better be able to manage their finances and maximize their 
opportunities, saving themselves and the taxpayers money every single 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, we provide over $120 billion of Federal student aid 
every year, without providing adequate education and support about how 
to use those funds. This must change. With this bill, we will begin to 
give our students the tools and resources necessary to ensure they put 
themselves in the best financial position for the future. H.R. 1635 
does just that.
  Additionally, the rule we are considering today makes in order 
several bipartisan amendments that are aimed at making this good bill 
even better.
  The rule that we are debating this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, also 
provides for consideration of H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale LNG 
Certainty and Access Act. This rule makes in order two Democrat 
amendments to this bipartisan bill which also will help strengthen our 
economy and create more American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, the United States is now the world's 
leading producer of oil and natural gas. And my home State of Wyoming 
ranks sixth in production of crude oil, and eighth in natural gas 
production. However, despite the important and even monumental efforts 
by the Trump administration so far, uncertainty and burdensome 
regulations still stifle operations and further growth.
  Currently, the Natural Gas Act does not specify an amount threshold 
for the Department of Energy's lengthy regulatory process for the 
exportation of liquefied natural gas. This means that producers wanting 
to export a small amount of gas are forced to go through the same 
process as major producers.
  By providing greater regulatory certainty and a clear timetable for 
the

[[Page H7835]]

process of exporting small amounts of LNG, we will better enable 
exporters to move forward with capital-intensive projects that create 
American jobs.
  We also are able, Mr. Speaker, through this bill, to preserve 
existing environmental laws and ensure that small-scale export 
facilities receive the proper review.
  Wyoming's petroleum industry directly employs over 7,000 people, with 
an annual payroll of over $668 million, contributing over $900 million 
to our economy.
  The small scale LNG export market is a growing sector of our economy 
with immense potential that can further expand the economic benefits 
the petroleum industry yields to my State and to the Nation. This bill 
will open up markets where large-scale exports are simply not 
economical and help jump-start growth in this important industry.
  H.R. 4606 places small-scale exports on a level playing field with 
exports to free trade agreement nations. Many of our neighboring 
countries are forced to rely on unstable or unfriendly nations for 
their energy needs because the regulations we currently place on our 
small-scale LNG exporters makes exporting to these nations 
uneconomical.
  Mr. Speaker, by reducing these regulations, U.S. LNG exports can play 
an important role in rebuilding parts of the Caribbean devastated by 
hurricanes in 2017, as well as provide a stable source of energy. It 
will also prevent our neighbors from having to turn, potentially, to 
our adversaries to meet their energy needs.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of an energy boom that is 
revitalizing our economy. It is also putting us in a position where we 
can greatly assist our neighbor countries by providing them a stable 
source of energy and offering support in the event of a natural 
disaster.
  The current unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations on small 
LNG exporters prevent us from taking full advantage of this 
unprecedented growth in our energy production and industry. H.R. 4606 
allows us to address this issue and to provide an additional boost to 
our economy.
  Mr. Speaker, the bills that will be considered under this rule are 
bipartisan bills that will help strengthen our economy and support our 
students. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule that will 
allow consideration of H.R. 4606 and H.R. 1635, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As we return to the Capitol this week, there remains countless crises 
which demand our attention: children still separated from their 
families; children being murdered on school grounds, while this body 
stands idly by doing nothing, turning a blind eye to gun violence.
  We have trade wars started by this President which are raising the 
cost of businesses in our communities and putting some companies out of 
business.
  Finally, the government runs out of funding at the end of the month, 
the end of this month, Mr. Speaker. We find ourselves facing yet 
another Republican government shutdown.
  But instead of funding the government and averting a shutdown, the 
majority has decided that these two bills are the best use of our time. 
That is right. The majority believes that the best use of what precious 
legislative time remains, 10 days, is to codify a DOE rulemaking that 
was just recently finalized.
  Why don't we provide some meaningful oversight over this 
administration?
  We have agency after agency attacking our Nation's workers, students, 
homeowners, and the health of our environment. We have a President who 
is starting trade wars and, reportedly, is itching to start real wars.
  But instead, all the majority is interested in doing is bringing 
unnecessary bills on the margins, such as the ones that we are 
considering today.
  The first bill, H.R. 4606, will codify into law a Department of 
Energy rulemaking that went into effect less than 3 weeks ago. H.R. 
4606 is a solution in search of a problem. The current approval process 
is working.
  However, by enshrining this rule into law, the majority is, in 
essence, saying that all small scale exports of LNG are always and will 
always be in the public's interest and will continue to be so. This is 
shortsighted and, if it turns out to be wrong, it will be much harder 
to correct this policy once it becomes law than if it were to remain a 
current DOE rule.
  In addition, we are considering H.R. 1635, the Empowering Students 
Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act.
  I wish to credit my Republican colleagues. This is a bipartisan bill. 
This is an example of what can be done when bills are given full 
hearings, a markup, and represent the consensus of the people's House.
  Unfortunately, the benefits of this bill are mitigated by actions 
from this administration that make it harder for students. For example, 
this past February, Republicans on the Education and the Workforce 
Committee passed the PROSPER Act.
  The so-called PROSPER Act is a highly partisan reauthorization of the 
Higher Education Act that cuts nearly $15 billion from Federal student 
aid, leaving students with more expensive loans that are more difficult 
to repay; more expensive loans for young Americans with the highest 
interest rates in nearly a decade.
  And just last week, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's 
student loan ombudsman, whose job was to protect student borrowers from 
predatory lending practices, resigned, resigned from his position. In 
his resignation letter, Seth Frotman wrote that the Trump 
administration has ``turned its back on young people and their 
financial futures.''
  Mr. Frotman also stated that under the leadership of Acting Director 
Mulvaney, ``. . . the Bureau has abandoned the very consumers it is 
tasked by Congress with protecting'' and that Director Mulvaney has ``. 
. . used the Bureau to serve the wishes of the most powerful financial 
companies in America,'' not surprising to me.
  Mr. Frotman wrote that the Bureau has failed student loan borrowers.
  While this bill may help, H.R. 1635, in no way, reverses the damage 
this administration has caused our students.
  Congress is supposed to be a check on the administration, not a 
rubber stamp.
  The rule we are considering makes in order two amendments to H.R. 
4606 and seven amendments in order to H.R. 1635.
  I am deeply disappointed that my two amendments were not made in 
order to H.R. 1635. My amendments would have helped students who have 
suffered from the closure of schools or school branches.
  When schools close, it is the students who are the real losers. They 
are saddled with debt and left having to navigate a complicated process 
for loan relief.

                              {time}  1230

  The two amendments I offered would have streamlined the process for 
students to have their loans discharged, ensuring that bureaucracy 
didn't slow down providing these students the relief that they need, 
and fixed the Pell grant process to make sure that students wouldn't be 
limited in pursuing their educational goals at a new institution. These 
are bipartisan ideas, which have been reviewed by the current 
administration.
  I am disappointed that the House wouldn't even allow an open process; 
however, I am certainly not surprised. After all, this is the most 
closed Congress in our Nation's history. I hope that we can aim to do 
better and give our constituents a real debate in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mrs. 
Torres, for her comments today.
  I think that Mrs. Torres and I both agree that Congress needs to 
ensure that we are playing our constitutional role, and that is why I 
find it particularly surprising that my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle want to further empower the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, which is a completely unaccountable and, I would argue, 
unconstitutional agency.
  In fact, statutorily, Mr. Speaker, with the regulation of student 
loans under the Higher Education Act, Congress has charged the 
Department of

[[Page H7836]]

Education with this obligation and responsibility, not the CFPB, and 
that is where we think it should belong. We don't think that the answer 
to congressional oversight and to increasing congressional oversight is 
to give further power to a completely unaccountable Federal agency.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Higgins).
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale 
LNG Certainty and Access Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States is currently experiencing an energy 
renaissance. Liquefied natural gas production, or LNG, in the United 
States is playing a major role in the changing of the international 
landscape, with America now leading the way in innovative new LNG 
technologies and becoming a major energy exporter.
  I am proud to say that much of this national accomplishment comes as 
a result of the contributions of many LNG endeavors based in my 
district in south Louisiana.
  The success we are currently experiencing is just the beginning. 
During this Congress, we have worked with the Trump administration to 
roll back many of the previous administration's regulations that 
injured American industry. In fact, the previous executive branch, in 
many ways, actually weaponized Federal agencies against the oil and gas 
industry. Conservatives in this Congress have worked to implement 
commonsense reforms like the legislation we are considering today to 
revive the American energy industry and bring energy security to our 
Nation.
  H.R. 4606 would provide for the expeditious consideration of NEPA 
exclusion applications to import and export small quantities of natural 
gas. This is a needed reform that will help encourage economic 
development and create jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support today's combined rule that includes this legislation and to 
support the full measure when it comes to the floor for a final vote.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as the cost to attend college has continued to rise, so 
has the amount of debt students and their parents have had to take on. 
According to the Federal Reserve, the outstanding loan debt stands at 
approximately $1.5 trillion and climbing. This debt load has hampered 
the ability of young graduates to buy their first home, a car, or start 
a small business.
  Congress needs to do more to help students and their parents deal 
with the student loan crisis. This is why I rise today to offer my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle the opportunity to pass a 
comprehensive bill to ensure that every student has a path to a debt-
free degree or credential that leads to a rewarding career.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 6543, the Aim Higher Act. This 
thoughtful proposal invests in our students, making higher education 
more affordable while also addressing the rising costs of college.
  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 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Torres for her 
leadership and Ms. Cheney for her hard work on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Higher 
Education Act, he said that it meant ``that a high school senior 
anywhere in this great land of ours can apply to any college or any 
university in any of the 50 States and not be turned away because their 
family is poor.''
  Unfortunately, 53 years later, the promise of an affordable education 
is out of reach for millions of students. In May of this year, 
America's outstanding student loan debt surpassed $1.5 trillion.
  With the cost of college education and the debt needed to afford it 
growing each year, Americans are demanding action to lower the crushing 
costs of higher education; and thus it is imperative that we pass 
a comprehensive update to the Higher Education Act which deals with the 
full menu of Federal policy that will keep higher education affordable.

  Unfortunately, the majority has failed to bring HEA to the floor in 
that long overdue rewrite, and today we are only left with the 
Financial Counseling bill that we are going to vote on, which is just a 
sliver of what we need to do to build America's future workforce.
  In 2008, the last HEA was negotiated under then-Chairman George 
Miller and passed the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan 
support. Fast-forward to last December, the majority introduced the 
misnamed PROSPER Act, a misguided attempt to update HEA that guts $15 
billion from Federal student aid and diverts taxpayer money to low-
quality, predatory programs.
  Unlike 2008, this bill squeaked out of the Education and Workforce 
Committee on a party-line vote. Fortunately, that bill has not seen the 
light of day ever since.
  In the absence of any movement on a long overdue update of HEA, I am 
pleased to report that committee Democrats stepped into this vacuum and 
introduced the Aim Higher Act, a comprehensive approach to higher 
education. Under the Aim Higher Act, every student will have the 
opportunity to earn a quality, debt-free degree or credential that 
leads to a rewarding career.
  This bill makes a number of changes to higher education to make 
degrees more affordable and easier to pay off. It provides 2 years of 
tuition-free community college to every high school graduate through 
Federal-State partnerships, incentivizes States to reinvest in their 4-
year public colleges and universities, and makes Federal financial aid 
more generous to keep pace with increased tuition costs.
  Additionally, knowing that 4-year college isn't for everyone and that 
our workforce needs are changing, our bill allows students to use their 
Pell grants for quality, short-term certificate programs that provide 
an accelerated path to the workforce.
  As I mentioned before, our student loan debt is at the highest level 
it has ever been, $1.5 trillion. That is the highest amount of consumer 
debt outside of mortgages. This debt burden is a drag not on just the 
student graduate or a family, it is a drag on our entire economy that 
impacts when or if a buyer can buy a home, start a family, get a small 
business off the ground, or change careers.
  Today, many interest rates for student loans are often far higher 
than other consumer borrowing, yet, like other forms of debt, student 
loans cannot be refinanced as interest rates drop, saddling 25 million 
borrowers with thousands of dollars in extra debt. Our bill fixes that 
and will allow students to refinance their loans to more affordable 
rates.
  Looking at the nationwide shortage of teachers and primary care 
doctors, our bill preserves the effective Public Service Loan 
Forgiveness Program, which the PROSPER Act abolished, to encourage 
talented individuals to pursue careers in high-need fields.
  It also expands the program to address challenges in our farming 
communities, where the average farmer age is now 58 years old and new 
farmers entering the field have drooped by 20 percent.
  The Aim Higher Act isn't just focused on cutting the cost of higher 
education; it is also focused on improving the quality of higher 
education. It cracks down on predatory institutions that waste student 
and taxpayer money by peddling expensive, low-quality programs.
  Our veterans who have earned their GI Bill benefits through service 
and sacrifice are frequent targets and victims of fraudulent schools, 
as Mrs. Holly Petraeus, the wife of General David Petraeus, 
crisscrossed America a couple years ago as a representative of the 
Consumer Finance Protection Bureau to warn veterans of these rip-offs.
  And finally, the Aim Higher Act gives students the tools they need to

[[Page H7837]]

graduate on time. We invest in campus childcare for student parents, 
subsidized housing for homeless and foster youth, faculty training for 
students with disabilities, and community centers to help student 
veterans transition to civilian life.
  Policy is defined by priorities. Instead of spending limited 
resources on a tax cut for those who don't need it, we believe that we 
should invest in our children and in the future of our economy. That is 
what the Aim Higher Act does.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join us in pushing for a higher 
education system that puts the promise of quality, debt-free degrees 
and a rewarding career within the reach of all Americans.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank Madam Chairwoman for 
recognizing me.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent rural eastern and southeastern Ohio, which 
is no stranger to the benefits of natural gas. It sits on top of the 
Utica and Marcellus shale plays, which have led to a growing interest 
in new and exciting manufacturing opportunities, like ethane cracker 
plants and ethane storage hubs.
  Those opportunities have become viable thanks to new technologies 
that have led to an increase in natural gas production. But that 
increased production has also been the result of the growing demand for 
excess U.S. natural gas.
  H.R. 4606, the Ensuring Small Scale LNG Certainty and Access Act, 
will help ensure the United States takes full advantage of our 
opportunities for excess small scale LNG exports, along with 
encouraging production opportunities here at home.
  Specifically, this bipartisan bill provides that applications under 
the Natural Gas Act for the importation or exportation of small volumes 
of natural gas, that being defined as 0.14 billion cubic feet per day, 
shall be granted without delay, but only if they do not require an 
environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act.
  Despite the U.S. being the world's leading producer of oil and 
natural gas, American companies are unable to efficiently export small 
quantities of gas to neighboring countries. By reducing regulatory 
constraints and codifying a similar rule issued by the Department of 
Energy, H.R. 4606 will better allow our domestic providers the 
opportunity to provide a stable source of U.S. energy to countries 
currently reliant on Venezuelan fuel oil, which has been used to gain 
influence in countries in the Caribbean and Central and South America.

  This effort to increase U.S. energy opportunities within the region 
is not new, as the previous administration also sought to increase 
energy engagement through the creation of the Caribbean Energy Security 
Initiative.
  As many independent and DOE-commissioned studies have confirmed, the 
benefits of natural gas exports are clear. They are a net positive to 
our domestic economy, but that is not the only benefit.
  As Puerto Rico continues to rebuild after the devastating hurricane 
in 2017, increased shipments and availability of reliable U.S. natural 
gas can help the island meet its energy needs.
  Additionally, LNG exports can only serve to strengthen U.S. ties with 
countries throughout the region.
  With U.S. natural gas reserves as large as they are and with new 
technological advancements allowing our producers to access an 
increasing amount of natural gas each and every day, it is imperative 
that the U.S. take full advantage of this abundant resource and the 
economic benefits it provides here at home. H.R. 4606 is a step in that 
direction. It will strengthen U.S. geopolitical ties, increase job 
creation, and promote economic growth as a result.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to vote for this rule and this 
commonsense underlying bill.

                              {time}  1245

  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The House is currently scheduled to be in session for just 10 days 
before funding for the government runs out--10 days. And while the 
House has passed partisan appropriation bills, none of them have been 
signed into law. If Congress fails to act, it will be the third time 
the government has shut down in 2018 alone--the third time.
  Let me remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the 
Republican Party is in charge of the House. The Republican Party is in 
charge of the Senate and the White House. President Trump is again 
playing games, and without leadership from this House and our 
colleagues in the Senate, his desire for a government shutdown will 
cause real people pain and hurt our growing economy.
  Three thousand Federal workers in my district have heard President 
Trump tell them that they are the reason that we are in debt. Three 
thousand workers in my district and 2 million nationally are wondering 
if they will be furloughed, while corporations and millionaires get 
massive tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and 
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 again would like to thank my colleague from the Rules 
Committee for her work and her participation in this debate.
  I hope that the minority leader of the United States Senate, Mr. 
Schumer, might have been listening to her arguments just now, and I 
would just recall for our colleagues that it was the Democrats in the 
Senate, led by Mr. Schumer, who shut the government down earlier this 
year, not the Republicans.
  Mr. Speaker, it was the Democrats in the House and the Senate who 
walked away from the negotiations on the budget deal that we finally 
were able to strike, but not before they refused to show up for at 
least one meeting at the White House.
  So it is the case that the Republicans are in control of this body. 
It is the case that we have a majority in the Senate. As my colleague 
knows, we don't have 60 votes in the Senate, and so Mr. Schumer and the 
Democrats in the Senate are able to gum up the works pretty 
extensively.
  But as for us in the House, we have, Mr. Speaker, been successful in 
passing all 12 appropriations bills. We have been successful in passing 
the necessary appropriations bills without the help of the Democrats in 
order to make sure that we are providing the funds that we need to keep 
the government open and keep the government functioning.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
participate in a good-faith manner, particularly in the coming weeks as 
we deal with the Defense Appropriations bill once again on this floor, 
and just remind them how important it is that we make sure that our men 
and women in uniform receive the funds that they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Johnson) and my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) for their 
important and hard work on these bills. We must continue to roll back 
the regulatory burdens that make doing business in our country so 
difficult.
  We also have to give our students the tools they need to maximize 
their opportunities for success and to understand the financial 
liabilities that they are undertaking when they receive these student 
loans. We don't want them to have a future that is diminished by the 
burden of unnecessary debt that they can't repay once they graduate.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and passage of 
the underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Torres is as follows:

           An Amendment to H. Res. 1049 Offered by Ms. Torres

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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. 
     6543) to amend and strengthen the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 so that every student has a path to a quality, debt-free 
     degree or credential that leads to a rewarding career. 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

[[Page H7838]]

     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 6543.

        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.

  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.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________