[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 201 (Thursday, December 20, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H10477-H10483]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO
SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 695, CHILD PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2017
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 1183 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1183
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 695)
to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to
establish a voluntary national criminal history background
check system and criminal history review program for certain
individuals who, related to their employment, have access to
children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, and
for other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House
amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in
the House, without intervention of any point of order, a
motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate
amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 115-88. The Senate amendment and the motion
shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable
for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
{time} 1645
General Leave
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for
consideration of the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act,
2019. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the
fourth appropriations package to fully fund the government for fiscal
year 2019. While the Congress has completed its work with respect to
almost 75 percent of total discretionary spending, including, notably,
the Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, Education, and
Labor, roughly 25 percent of this discretionary spending remains
outstanding. Today's bill will provide a short-term continuing
resolution to February 8, 2019, to ensure that the entirety of the
Federal Government remains open and operating while the Congress
continues its work.
I have said on numerous occasions both on this floor and elsewhere
that continuing resolutions are not the best way to fund the
government, but allowing the government to shut down, even in part, is
much costlier and much worse. It is our obligation to our constituents
to keep all of the government open and operating to provide needed
services to them.
Mr. Speaker, from an appropriations perspective, this year has been
remarkably successful. Earlier this year, we sent 5 of the 12
appropriations bills to the President for his signature before the
beginning of the fiscal year. That is the best record in 22 years.
[[Page H10478]]
With hard work from both sides of the aisle in both Houses of
Congress, our earlier efforts represented a return to regular order and
to the normal legislative process. For us to drop the ball now, at the
end of the year and at the end of this Congress, would negate much of
the good work that has already been done this year.
As I have said so often on this floor, the primary obligation of the
Congress is to fund the American Government and to keep it open and
operating. The American people deserve no less. With this package under
consideration today, Congress will do just that with respect to 7 of
the 12 main spending bills: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies; Commerce, Justice, Science,
and the Related Agencies; Financial Services and General Government;
Homeland Security; Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies; State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs; and, finally, Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.
As my colleagues can see from this list, the group of bills covers a
broad array of vital government programs the American people rely upon.
It includes key departments like the Department of Homeland Security,
the Food and Drug Administration, the Border Patrol, and the State
Department.
It covers services like funding roads, operating security checkpoints
at airports, passport services, food inspection services, importation
and exportation of goods and services, banking services, and thousands
of other important government functions.
Perhaps just as importantly, it covers approximately 800,000
employees, about half of whom would need to be furloughed and about
half of whom would likely be deemed essential and be required to work
without a guarantee of pay.
While continuing resolutions are in no way, shape, or form the best
way to do business, the measure before us today will at least ensure
that the government remains open and operating and will continue to
provide the needed services for our Nation and our constituents. I look
forward to working with my colleagues in the coming weeks to complete
our work on funding the government for fiscal year 2019.
Importantly, this bill also includes funding for disaster relief and
to secure the border. The American people have made their voices heard,
and they have told us time and time again that they want additional
border security. To that end, this bill appropriates $5 billion for the
purpose of securing the border.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill also appropriates $7.8 billion for
disaster relief. As we have seen time and again in places like New
Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the East Coast after Hurricane Sandy,
and my own hometown of Moore, Oklahoma, after devastating tornadoes,
disasters require a helping hand. By appropriating these funds we offer
our fellow Americans who have been afflicted by disasters the help that
they need and require.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by again thanking my colleague from
Oklahoma for the work that he and other appropriators did to try to
keep the government running. We are here right now not because of the
appropriators. We are here right now because Donald Trump has made a
mess of things.
Mr. Speaker, it is surreal that we are here today, days before the
end of a Congress, hours before one-quarter of the Federal Government
runs out of money, scrambling to keep the lights on at the brink of the
third Republican government shutdown this year, because we are not
dealing with divided government. Republicans today control not only
this Chamber, but also the Senate and the White House. They have been
fighting among themselves for weeks over whether and how to keep the
Government of the United States open for business. It would be comical
if it weren't so serious.
This proposal that we are being given right now is not a solution. It
is a political temper tantrum all to please one man: the person sitting
at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It doesn't solve the disagreements in this
Chamber or the Senate, and it doesn't prevent the shutdown America is
facing.
This President and this majority ran on fear during the last
election: fear of immigrants, fear of those seeking asylum, and fear of
anyone who doesn't look exactly like them.
What happened, Mr. Speaker? They were resoundingly rejected. The
American people chose a different course. They don't want a government
that reacts only to the wants of the President's ever-shrinking base,
the small segment of society that actually supports his offensive
border wall.
Let me remind my colleagues, according to polling, Americans, by a 2-
to-1 margin, want the President to compromise on the wall to avoid a
shutdown. This proposal is exactly what the President may want, but it
is precisely what the American people rejected.
The Senate passed a bipartisan continuing resolution to keep the
lights on. This House was prepared to pass it until the President's
latest outburst. Governing by tweet isn't governing at all. If the
President's most senior advisers are Fox & Friends and Rush Limbaugh,
maybe we shouldn't be surprised when we find ourselves here today.
But this morning, this House came together to pass same-day authority
so the majority could move quickly on a bipartisan, short-term
continuing resolution. Democrats joined our Republican colleagues in
this effort to provide the tools needed to keep the lights on. This is
how you are using them?
This isn't a serious plan. To even vote for disaster relief, this
bill requires you to support the President's offensive wall. Democrats
and the American people have already rejected this false choice.
This wall is a medieval solution to a 21st century problem. What is
next, Mr. Speaker, money for a moat around Mar-a-Lago?
This will not become law, what we are doing right now. This is a
waste of time. If it even passes here--which is a big if--it is dead on
arrival in the Senate. I say to my friend: The clock is ticking. Let's
get to work on a clean bill that can make it to the President. This
isn't that. This is just offensive.
Again, let me remind those in this Chamber the Senate, in a
bipartisan way, came together by a voice vote and supported a
continuing resolution, a clean CR, to keep the government running for 7
weeks. That is it. It is all we are proposing here today. This Chamber
can't even do that. This is a disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject it, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments before I yield to my
friend from Alabama and fellow Rules Committee member for 3 minutes.
Let me just quickly point out that we are really talking about border
security here. This clearly isn't simply a wall. Frankly, there is not
enough money involved here. This is a matter of providing additional
security.
It is important to note the Border Patrol union itself fully supports
what the President is trying to do. This is the type of thing they have
asked us to provide them so that they can provide us with the security
that we tasked them to give to the American people.
The disaster relief is something I think probably both sides should
be able to agree on. We know there is a genuine disaster. We have had
fires, and we have got hurricane relief. I have a very detailed summary
here of all the various items that would be taken care of. I would be
more than happy to provide that to my friend. That is something that we
should do before we go home. That is something, frankly, Americans have
a right to count on.
I remember--and I was with my friends in this endeavor--during the
Sandy debate and how desperately we needed aid at that point in time
and how severe the reaction was when Congress went home without getting
that done and came back in January. I
[[Page H10479]]
think the reaction was appropriate. So this disaster relief is
extraordinarily important, and I hope that we focus on that in our
debate as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Byrne), who is a fellow member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to add my support to this rule.
When did protecting the American people--knowing who is entering our
country and having a secure border--become some kind of radical or
partisan idea?
I am stunned to see the length to which some of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle will go simply to oppose enhanced border
security, including a border wall. In fact, it seems they are willing
to shut down the Federal Government instead of supporting President
Trump's urgent request for $5 billion to fund the border wall.
What is especially strange is that some of my colleagues on the other
side have already supported a wall in the past. Some have even voted in
support of a border wall. What has changed?
I think the answer is very simple. I think some of my colleagues are
so committed to appeasing the so-called resistance that they find
themselves opposing a very basic and commonsense idea like border
security just because they want to earn points from the most extreme
part of their political base.
This is really not a complicated issue. This is about the safety and
security of the American people. This is about keeping terrorists out
of our country. This is about keeping illegal drugs out of our country.
This is about keeping criminals out of our country. This shouldn't be
hard.
Why am I so passionate about this? Because this is a critical issue.
When I talk to the people I represent back in Alabama, they are
passionate about it. This is one of the top issues I hear about at
events and townhalls throughout Alabama. In fact, the phones in my
office have been ringing all day with people urging us to stand strong,
secure our borders, and build the wall.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a fight worth fighting. I think pushing
to ensure the safety of the American people is worthy, and it is
absolutely a critical fight. So I urge my colleagues to stop playing to
the resistance. Come back toward a commonsense idea like securing our
border. Pass this amendment. Pass this funding bill, and ensure the
safety of the American people.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if I could just respond to my colleague, if I thought
for one second building a stupid wall would somehow secure our borders,
I would be for it. But every expert I have talked to, including people
on the border, say they need more personnel and say we ought to invest
more in electronic equipment to surveil our borders. I don't know of a
wall that has ever been built that people haven't climbed over or dug
under. This is ridiculous.
By the way, when the President campaigned, he said that he wanted to
build a wall and that Mexico was going to pay for it. Now he wants to
build a wall that by all accounts is going to be useless in terms of
protecting our borders, and he wants the American taxpayers to pay for
it.
Well, you have $5 billion. How about rebuilding our roads and our
bridges that are crumbling in this country?
If you have got $5 billion that you don't care what you do with, how
about investing it in affordable housing?
Or how about dealing with the issue of climate change?
Or how about making sure that some of the 40 million-plus Americans
in this country who don't have enough to eat have food?
Wasting money on something so ridiculous is offensive.
So we want border security. We are happy to work with you on enhanced
border security, but this isn't it. This is a campaign slogan. This is
a waste of taxpayer money. It is ridiculous. It is embarrassing. For
the President to want to shut down the government over this is
disgraceful.
By the way, on the disaster package, just so my colleagues understand
this, the disaster package in this bill does not include $600 million
in nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico. So unless this Congress takes
immediate action, 1.4 million of our fellow citizens of Puerto Rico
stand to suffer deep cuts in food assistance, causing many of them to
go hungry. That is shameful. Where is the help for them?
{time} 1700
Of course, we should pass a clean CR to ensure that our government
remains open. But my friend talked about disaster assistance, and I
just wanted to point out that one thing that is missing in their
disaster package is the nutrition money for our fellow citizens of
Puerto Rico. I am sure there are others.
We are rushing this thing through. There is no transparency here. We
thought we had a deal to keep the government open for 7 weeks. Then,
all of a sudden, I guess the President tuned into ``Fox and Friends''
and changed his mind. You don't know where this President is going to
be day-to-day or hour-to-hour or minute-to-minute. But he is the guy
who said that he would be proud to own a shutdown.
Well, I think it would be a disaster for this country to have another
shutdown. I think it would be expensive. I think we should to do
everything we can to avoid it, and that is why we ought to send a clean
CR back to the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments with regard to
the statement my good friend made.
We are actually talking, really, in a sense, not about not $5
billion. We are talking about $3.3 billion. The Senate bill that passed
actually added $1.7 billion, which is a tacit admission that physical
barriers do make a difference.
We all agree that the amount of money we are talking about here would
not build an entire wall. Quite the opposite, it would just provide
some physical barriers at points along the border that are weak and
need additional security.
My friend says that nobody is interested in this. Frankly, the border
security unions are. The Border Patrol has endorsed the President's
proposal. The men and women we have tasked to defend our borders tell
us this is something that they need. They have gone so far as to say
they would support a government shutdown.
I hope we don't have that. I am not for a government shutdown. I
never have been for a government shutdown. But this is not an
extraordinary amount of money in a bill, frankly, that totals well over
$250 billion, when you add up all the spending. And being able to put
additional security there is important.
To my friend's point about Puerto Rico, I think that is a good point.
I think that is a fair point to make. We should probably go back and
take a look at that. I do know that Americans desperately need
assistance in a variety of areas, Puerto Rico included. Agriculture
help is necessary, as well as help for rebuilding military
installations and schools that have been destroyed. Why can't we get
that done?
This is a very substantial package. There is actually more money in
this bill for disaster relief for American citizens than there is for
additional border security. So I think this is an eminently sensible
proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption and the adoption of the rule, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I don't really want to prolong this debate much longer here. Every
day with this administration is another self-made crisis, another
demonstration of bad faith.
No one can trust what comes out of the White House, what the
President says. His word is worthless. And here we are, as evidence of
that fact.
Mr. Speaker, the government is set to run out of money tomorrow. We
are running out of time to act. But, apparently, this is exactly what
President Trump wants.
Last week, he said he would be ``proud to shut down the government.''
Today, he confirmed he wouldn't even sign a clean CR to keep our
government open for just a few more weeks.
It is irresponsible and abhorrent to attach funding for his offensive
border wall to a bill to keep the lights on.
[[Page H10480]]
That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up the Senate amendment to H.R. 695,
which is the clean CR that has already passed the Senate by a voice
vote. Every Democrat and every Republican stood together and passed the
CR. It wasn't controversial over there. Somehow, it is controversial
here.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Duncan of Tennessee). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), my good friend.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, we all took an oath. I know we remember
that oath--for me, it was pretty meaningful; it was my first oath of
office--to keep our citizens safe, to protect them, protect them at our
borders, protect them in the case of disasters.
In fact, in the past, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have supported a border wall, border protection. But now, since the
name ``President Trump'' is on it, it is evil; it is bad. How
politically convenient.
I remind you of the oath we took to protect the citizens in this
Nation whom, apparently, we are so ready to toss aside when it is
politically expedient.
You talk about a deal that was made. The Senate may have made
whatever deal they wished to make. I am unaware that we work for the
United States Senate, Mr. Speaker.
I represent the people of the 10th Congressional District, and I will
tell you what they say. They want our borders secure. They want us to
take care of people in disasters. There are heartaches for the folks in
Florida, George, and California who were devastated by disasters. They
ask why we can't fund disaster relief for those people.
Please, let's not talk about a deal that was made in the other House,
because we are not responsible to them. We are responsible to the
people who elected us.
One last point: We are at this point of struggling over keeping the
government open--and let's be honest about it, it is part of the
government. The other side of the aisle talks about shutting down the
government. It is about 20 percent, 25 percent of the government.
We are at this point because the Senate won't make a deal that
doesn't protect the fairly tenuous position that the future Speaker has
on the other side of the aisle, and she doesn't want to make a deal.
I spent 35 years in private business. Compromise is the way it works.
A compromise was offered and summarily rejected within minutes in the
Senate by Mr. Schumer and then by Ms. Pelosi.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule, pass the resolution, and
send it back to the Senate and tell them to do their job.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just respond to the gentleman that we are all for
compromise. This 7-week CR is a compromise. The clean CR is a
compromise. In a bipartisan way, unanimously in the United States
Senate, they accepted it. The President said he was for it. Then he
changed his mind after watching ``Fox and Friends'' or listening to
some right-wing radio host.
The gentleman talks about protecting the border. We want to protect
the border. We want to invest money in things that will actually
protect the border, not in a press release, not in a sound bite, not in
something that is a total waste of money, like a wall.
But what about the fact that the President is going to shut the
government down over a stupid wall and that means that the men and
women who work for the Department of Homeland Security, the people who
protect our borders, will not get paid, and we are not going to support
them?
One of my Republican colleagues, when he was faced with that
question, said: ``It's actually part of what you do when you sign up
for any public service position.''
Really? That is how we treat and respect the men and women who are
charged with protecting our borders? We turn our backs on them during
the holiday season? Merry Christmas. We are not going to pay you.
What they need, if you go to the border and talk to them, are more
personnel. They want us to invest in more electronic equipment to help
them surveil the border. They will tell you that this idea of a wall is
dumb. It doesn't work. It is not going to protect this country. It is a
waste of money.
We had a deal to move this CR forward, and the President changed his
mind. He reneged on his word. He didn't keep his promise. And here we
are.
So, as Republicans fight with Republicans here in the House,
thankfully, the Senate, in a bipartisan way, came up with a solution.
There was a compromise. Democrats are willing to support that
compromise. But, somehow, it is not enough.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I know what it is like to be waiting on
disaster aid and not getting it. Among other things, this potential or
so-called disaster aid is missing dollars needed by the people of
Puerto Rico. I walked the streets and saw how desperate the need was.
It doesn't even include the $600 million in assistance for Puerto Rico
to deal with food nutrition.
I remember, in the time of Hurricane Harvey, we begged for an
extension for the food nutrition program called Disaster Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, and in 3 days, we served 30,000 people.
You have to feel the pain to understand.
Really, Mr. Speaker, this is a sham and a shame, because Republicans
are in the United States Senate--let the American people understand
that--and they fostered this compromise. They came together. They have
sent it to the President. They spoke to the President. The President
agreed that we would do it in this manner and that we would look at
this issue on the other side of 2019.
What happened here? A callous disregard of Border Patrol agents;
callous disregard of Customs and Border Protection; callous disregard
of the National Guard and the military who are down at the border, who
are out there every day; and a callous disregard of Jakelin, the 7-
year-old who died because we don't have adequate health facilities,
medical care, medevac, and the kind of decent living conditions--yes,
decent--that are warranted.
We are shutting down Commerce and Justice. We don't have enough
judges at the border. We don't have enough judges to deal with the
asylum cases.
So if these folks want border security, it is not just a wall. It is
technology. It is the agents. It is understanding that human beings are
coming across the border. It is medical care. It is, as well, the
security that we need.
So I am here to say, Mr. Speaker, as I close, what a sham and a
shame. Let's get the Senate bill and put it on the floor.
Yesterday, I introduced H.R. 7332 that says no American tax dollars
will be paid for the wall. Mexico will pay for it. Border security will
be based upon technology, personnel, and barriers.
Let's pass that bill and pass the CR from the Senate.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes, in the heat of debate, it is easy to miss
what the real essence of the dispute is.
When I vote for the rule--and I don't expect my friend to vote for
the rule; that is always a partisan exercise--but when I vote for the
underlying legislation, I will actually be voting to fund the
government. If my friends vote ``no,'' they will be voting not to fund
the government. So if they are worried about funding the government,
all they have to do is vote for this bill, because it funds the
government.
The second thing I will be voting for is disaster relief. My friends
have said that there are other areas that are worthy of relief. That is
probably true. I don't have any quarrel with that. But I wouldn't vote
against this disaster relief because it wasn't enough. I would
[[Page H10481]]
vote for this and then try to get additional in the time that we have
remaining.
Finally, I will be voting for enhanced border security. We all know
we have a problem. We all know that our border is not as secure as we
would like. There is a debate over wall versus no wall. This really
isn't a wall.
The wall would be $25 billion. Our friends have offered $1.7 billion.
The President has been the one who has compromised, who has come back
with $5 billion. So we are talking about $3.3 billion for various
physical barriers at spots that we all agree would almost certainly
work, done with the cooperation of our own people at Homeland Security.
Finally, we are talking about not paying border agents. Border agents
have told us this is what they need. That is what their union has said.
That is what their elected representatives said.
We want to do what the President has proposed. The President isn't
shutting down the government. The President is willing to sign
legislation that funds all the government. He has asked for disaster
relief, something that should not be controversial in this Chamber, in
my view, but sometimes is.
Finally, he has asked for an awfully modest amount of money to
provide additional security along the border that the Border Patrol
itself has asked for. That is really what is at issue.
{time} 1715
So when you vote against this legislation, you will be the ones
voting to shut down the government, not the President, not my
colleagues in this Chamber, not the Senate and whatever they decide to
do in their infinite wisdom, but a ``no'' vote on the underlying
legislation is a vote to shut down the government.
A ``yes'' vote for the rule, which my friends would differ with, and
that is fair enough, but a ``yes'' vote for the underlying legislation
is the vote to keep the government open, take care of the disasters
that we are faced with, and provide modest additional support for our
border agents and Border Patrol.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just need to correct the Record on a few
things here.
It was the President who said he would be proud to shut the
government down. My colleague may recall not too long ago the President
had a meeting with Speaker-designate Pelosi and Leader Schumer over in
the Senate. He bragged about it on camera.
The President invited the cameras in, and he said: I would be proud
to own a shutdown. That is what he said.
So we know where the President stands on this. He doesn't care about
shutting the government down. We should.
The gentleman said that votes on rules are always partisan. Well, for
the most part they are, but not this morning--not this morning.
My Republican friends brought a martial law rule to the floor, which
we don't really like because it basically condenses the process and we
don't have a lot of time to look at things. But nonetheless, we said we
would vote for it.
Almost every Democrat voted with Republicans to move this so-called
martial law rule forward so that we could bring up the Senate-passed
continuing resolution today and keep the government running and be able
to pay the men and women who protect our borders. So we came in good
faith, and we did that.
We want border security. We just think wasting billions of dollars on
a stupid wall that doesn't do anything to protect our country is the
wrong way to go.
So if you want to vote to keep the government open, then you should
vote with us to defeat the previous question because, if we defeat the
previous question, then I will bring up the Senate-passed continuing
resolution, and we can all vote for it. We can all keep the government
running. We can all go home and have a merry Christmas and a happy new
year. That is how simple it is.
My Republican friends are bringing a rule to the floor that says
that, if you vote for this rule, there is no separate vote on the
border wall. It is all together.
They know what is going to happen. If it passes the House, it will go
over to the Senate, and they are not going to accept this. They have
already had a bipartisan compromise. They had a deal with the President
until he changed his mind.
So if you want to keep the government open, then vote with the
Democrats on defeating the previous question, and we will bring up a
clean CR and we will do the right thing. We will do what we thought we
were going to be doing this morning until the Republicans got into a
fight with one another, and here we are.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers he
has.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am looking at a headline here today. It says: ``U.S.
stocks clobbered, with Dow losing nearly 500 points, amid White House
drama over government shutdown.''
Mr. Speaker, creating chaos in the stock market is how a drama queen
might act, but it is not how any President should behave. This is
totally manufactured by the White House crisis. This is ridiculous that
we are at this point, after all the agreements that have been reached
in the Senate and, we thought, here in the House.
The President turned the TV set on and started watching FOX News and
got carried away and now is reneging on his agreement. That is
unfortunate.
But I would again say to my colleagues: Let us defeat the previous
question, and we will bring up a clean CR. We will keep this government
open, and we will do the right thing by the American people. And most
importantly, we will make sure that the men and women who are
protecting our border get paid during this Christmas holiday. It is the
right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend. As always, it is a spirited
debate, and I want to be the first to say he is exactly right on a
point he made. He did, earlier today, actually help me on this side of
the aisle. I was evidently much more persuasive this morning than I
have been this afternoon. But my friend is exactly right. On many
occasions we have worked together, and I want to thank him for that.
I also want to review just quickly what I see, at least, Mr. Speaker,
as the main issues here.
Number one, we all say we agree we want to keep the government
funded, and I believe we all do. We don't believe in government
shutdowns. We all believe the government ought to be funded. The
underlying legislation does exactly that.
I think all of us, on both sides of the aisle, care about Americans
who have been hurt in disasters, and we have shown that time and time
again. We have struggled on occasion, but we generally get aid to where
it is needed; and if we overlook somebody, we try and come back and do
that again.
This bill makes a good-faith effort to provide billions of dollars in
assistance to Americans who need it through no fault of their own, who
have been ravaged by fire, who have been damaged by hurricanes, who
face a variety of disasters, not just in the United States, but in the
territories as well. If, again, we have overlooked something, we should
go back and try and take care of that as well.
Finally, it provides a very modest amount of money. Remember, this
package, together, is over $250 billion. The difference between the two
sides--unless my friends object to disaster relief, which I doubt they
do--to be fair, is really $3.3 billion. That is what the President
thinks he needs, an additional expenditure along the border, or $5
billion if you want to characterize it that way. But the difference
between the two sides is only $3.3 billion.
That doesn't build a wall. We have been told the President is
uncompromising. He is not uncompromising. He has been, for 2 years,
talking about an
[[Page H10482]]
elaborate border security of $25 billion. This is 5, not 25. This would
not build a wall, but this would provide additional security.
We all know there are points along the way where physical barriers
matter and make a difference. I think that is what the President is
asking for.
My friends worry, and rightly so, about people not getting paid
during a government shutdown, which I hope we avoid, quite frankly. But
the men and women on the border have asked the President to do this.
They support what he is trying to do.
When we send troops into combat, I listen to what they have to say
and what they need. So does this Congress, and it tries to provide it.
We put people in a difficult situation along the border, and they
tell us these are the sorts of tools they need. The President is trying
to respond in this case, and I think we should support him in that
effort.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule.
Today's bill represents the next step toward fulfilling our primary
obligation as Members of Congress to fund the government.
While continuing resolutions are never the best way to fund the
government, today's measure will allow us to keep the entire government
open and operating and providing needed services for our country and
our constituents until February 8 of 2019. This measure will give
Congress the time it needs to complete the rest of our work and fully
fund the government through the end of fiscal year 2019.
I want to applaud my colleagues for their work.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 1183 Offered By Mr. McGovern
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 695) to
amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to establish
a voluntary national criminal history background check system
and criminal history review program for certain individuals
who, related to their employment, have access to children,
the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, and for other
purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to
the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House,
without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered
by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his
designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the
House amendment to the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment
and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall
be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to adoption without intervening motion.
Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment
to the Senate amendment to H.R. 695.''.
____
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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 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;
The motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 88 with an
amendment; and
The motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments
to H.R. 2606, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223,
nays 178, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 468]
YEAS--223
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Balderson
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
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hern
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
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
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
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
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
[[Page H10483]]
Tipton
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--178
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (MI)
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--31
Black
Capuano
Comstock
Costa
Crowley
Davis, Danny
Duncan (SC)
Hanabusa
Hastings
Hultgren
Jenkins (KS)
Jones (NC)
Keating
Kind
Love
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham, M.
Messer
Noem
Polis
Ratcliffe
Rosen
Roskam
Rush
Scott, David
Shea-Porter
Sinema
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Trott
Walz
{time} 1750
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, Ms. ESTY of Connecticut, Messrs. CLYBURN,
GOTTHEIMER, and POCAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221,
noes 179, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 469]
AYES--221
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Balderson
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
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hern
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
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
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
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
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
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--179
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
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
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (MI)
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--32
Black
Capuano
Comstock
Crowley
Davis, Danny
Duncan (SC)
Hanabusa
Hastings
Hultgren
Jenkins (KS)
Jones (NC)
Keating
Kind
Love
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham, M.
MacArthur
McCaul
Messer
Noem
Polis
Ratcliffe
Rosen
Roskam
Schrader
Scott, David
Shea-Porter
Sinema
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Trott
Walz
{time} 1800
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.
____________________