Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 97 (Tuesday, June 11, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 97 (Tuesday, June 11, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H4402-H4411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2740, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2020, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 430, AUTHORIZING
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO INITIATE OR INTERVENE IN JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE CERTAIN SUBPOENAS

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 431 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 431

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. 2740) making appropriations for the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2020, 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
116-17, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, 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.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this
resolution, and pro forma amendments described in section 4
of this resolution.
(b) Each further amendment printed in part B of the report
of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may
be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action
thereon, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided
by section 4 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.
(c) All points of order against further amendments printed
in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed
in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective
designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as
provided by section 4 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.
Sec. 4. During consideration of the bill for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
15 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 5. 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. 6. (a) During consideration of H.R. 2740, 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 section shall not apply to an amendment between
the Houses.
Sec. 7. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 430) authorizing the
Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in
judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas and for
other purposes. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the
resolution shall be considered as adopted. The resolution, as
amended, shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution, as amended,
to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division
of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 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} 1230

General Leave

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, H.R. 431, providing for consideration of H.R. 2740,
making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes, and H. Res. 430,
authorizing the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in
judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas and, also, for other
purposes.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2740 under a structured
rule, self-executes Chairwoman Lowey's manager's amendment, and makes
in order 106 different amendments.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally and divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee, and provides that they may offer up to 15 pro forma
amendments, each for the purposes of debate.
The chair of the Appropriations Committee may also offer amendments
en bloc consisting of amendments made in order by the rule and not
earlier disposed of.
Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 430
under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally and divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Rules Committee.

[[Page H4403]]

Mr. Speaker, this rule pairs two bills which demonstrate the
commitment of the House majority both to making strong progress for the
American people in the areas of health, labor, and education, at the
same time that we defend the Constitution of the United States and the
rule of law against the obstructionism and the lawlessness of the
executive branch of government.
Let's start with H.R. 2740, which is designed to make government work
for our people. It provides $189.9 billion in discretionary funding for
the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and the
Department of Health and Human Services.
It increases investment in the National Institutes of Health, our
country's preeminent medical research agency, a national treasure,
which is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, in my district, to
support research for Alzheimer's disease, HIV/Aids, breast cancer,
colon cancer, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, childhood cancer,
heart disease, stroke, diabetes, mental health, suicide prevention, and
the Cancer Moonshot initiative.
The people of NIH and their network of allied entities and agencies
and supported universities and research labs across the country are
making profound progress in the struggle to uplift the health of the
people against all of the killer diseases of our time.
And for the first time in more than 20 years, this bill contains
funding to support gun violence and firearm injury prevention research,
and we are proud of that.
This legislation increases funding for Department of Education
programs to help America's children succeed, providing critical
resources for elementary and secondary schools, special ed programs,
and Federal student aid. Importantly, the bill increases the maximum
Pell grant to help America's college and graduate students keep pace
with inflation and the high cost of living.
H.R. 2740 also provides $56.4 billion in funding for the State
Department, USAID, and the U.S. Institute of Peace. We are making major
strategic investments in diplomacy, global health, and international
basic education, the crucial ingredients for maintaining peace and
security around the world.
This legislation provides essential humanitarian assistance and
critical funding to improve maternal and child health, to fight
diseases like malaria, and to support women's reproductive health and
literacy across the globe. We know that the key to improving social and
economic development around the world is the education of women and the
investment in family planning programs and literacy about procreation.
This legislation renews our Nation's commitment to addressing the
climate crisis by investing in directives on adaption and renewable
energy. It also prohibits the use of any government funds to withdraw
from the Paris climate agreement.
Now, on the other legislation, which deals with contempt, Mr.
Speaker, we know from Special Counsel Mueller's report that there was a
sweeping and systematic assault on America's elections in 2016. There
was a conscious effort and plan by Vladimir Putin and the GRU to
undermine and destabilize the American elections by interfering and
hacking into the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, Hillary Clinton's offices to inject
poisonous ideological propaganda into the body politic of America
through Facebook, through Twitter, through YouTube and other social
media entities and then to directly hack into the State boards of
election.
The Department of Justice launched a special counsel inquiry. It was
a Republican Attorney General who named a Republican special counsel,
Mr. Mueller, to do it.
The President of the United States, according to Special Counsel
Mueller's report, engaged in at least 10 different episodes of efforts
to interfere with that investigation, to obstruct justice. We received
that report a couple of months ago from the special counsel.
In the aftermath of it, President Trump said, ``We are fighting all
subpoenas,'' and declared that there would be no cooperation from the
executive branch with legislative branch subpoenas, with our demands
for documents, with our demands for witnesses, with our demands for
testimony from the executive branch. He said: ``I don't want people
testifying,'' and, ``There is no reason to go any further.'' And since
then, they have drawn a curtain down over the executive branch of
government and defied the lawful orders of the Congress of the United
States.
The Trump administration is stonewalling, from pillar to post,
congressional investigations, defying validly issued congressional
subpoenas. So, for example, Attorney General Barr is refusing to
produce the full unredacted Mueller report and the related underlying
evidence to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Every other independent special counsel had simply turned their
report over to Congress and Congress did the redactions, but Attorney
General Barr engaged in a series of games with the Congress of the
United States and confused the American public, as Special Counsel
Mueller complained in a letter that he sent to the Attorney General.
He is also defying a House Intelligence Committee subpoena directing
him to turn over documents and materials related to Special Counsel
Mueller's investigation, including all counterintelligence and foreign
intelligence materials produced during the investigation.
Don McGahn, the former White House counsel, has defied a subpoena
issued by the House Committee on the Judiciary without any substantial
legal basis at all.
Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is defying a subpoena from the House
Ways and Means Committee directing him to produce the President's tax
returns under a statute that makes it crystal clear that Congress has a
right to obtain the tax returns of the President or any other citizen
of the United States.
Commerce Secretary Ross and Attorney General William Barr are
refusing to comply with duly authorized bipartisan subpoenas from the
House Oversight and Reform Committee, which is investigating the
administration's shadowy and illicit efforts to add an illegitimate
citizenship question to the 2020 Census completely outside of the
Administrative Procedures Act process. Several District Courts have
struck that down. But, in any event, the administration is refusing to
turn over evidence, relevant evidence, to Congress about this effort to
impose the citizenship question on the census.
The administration is refusing to turn over documents, witnesses, and
testimony relating to the corruption of the security clearance process
in the White House personnel office.
There were 25 different individuals who were denied a security
clearance by the professional staff in the White House personnel
office, who were then overruled by President Trump or political
appointees. We are trying to get information as to what was the basis
for the original denial. It was, likely, conflict with foreign
governments or financial conflicts of interest. It might also have been
drug or alcohol problems. But we want to get the details of each one,
and then we want to know if there is any written documentation of why
the President and his subordinates overturned those.
In all of these cases, Mr. Speaker, the executive branch of
government has followed President Trump's orders to say, simply: We are
not going to turn anything over to Congress.
Now, understand, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that
it is an essential and integral aspect of legislative power to engage
in investigation and factfinding. That is how the people's
Representatives are able to legislate: We are able to get information.
But if you shut down our ability to get information, we cannot engage
in lawmaking. For that reason, we have begun to win in all of these
Federal District Court cases where we are going out to try to get this
information.
But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot tie up the floor of the House of
Representatives every time the executive branch decides to follow the
order of the President and simply deny us the information that we seek.
My friends across the aisle know from the Fast and Furious
investigation, the Hillary Clinton email investigation, the Benghazi
investigation it is Congress' right to investigate and to obtain the
documents that it wants. They obtained millions of documents

[[Page H4404]]

in those investigations. We had a right to get them then, and we have a
right to get all of these documents now.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will give the power, first of all, to
the Committee on the Judiciary to follow through on the subpoenas that
it has issued. It will also empower and authorize each chair of the
House of Representatives to enforce their lawful subpoenas that are
being dishonored and violated by the executive branch of government.
So we are very proud to bring forward these two pieces of
legislation, one which makes good on our commitment to the American
people to continue to make progress in the fields of education,
healthcare, labor, and scientific and medical research while, at the
same time, we defend the Constitution, the rule of law, the
prerogatives and powers of Congress against the lawlessness and the
obstructionism of this administration.
We are the preeminent and primary branch of government. The very
first sentence of the Constitution, Mr. Speaker: ``We the people of the
United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America.''
The second sentence that follows is all legislative power is vested
in the Congress of the United States.

{time} 1245

The sovereign power of the people comes right through the preamble
into Article I, establishing us as the representatives of the people.
Then you get dozens of paragraphs setting forth all the powers of
Congress: to declare war, to raise revenues, to write budgets, to
impeach the President or other executive branch officials who commit
high crimes and misdemeanors and to remove them in the Senate, to set
up a post office, to govern the seat of government, and to establish a
capital city. Those are the prerogatives and powers of Congress.
Then you get to Article II, and Article II fixes the powers of the
President. What are the President's core responsibilities? To take care
that the laws are faithfully executed. That is the President's job: to
take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
It is even in Article II that the President can be impeached, in
Section 4.
Just to make it clear, the President works for the Congress; the
Congress doesn't work for the President. And we, the Congress, work for
the people.
That is what it means to have a representative democracy. We work for
the people.
Now, we have a President who is in an unprecedented, wholesale,
categorical defiance of the powers of Congress by denying us the
information that we seek to obtain, which is our right and which is our
need.
We are going to get it, and we are going to get it by empowering
Congress to go to court to enforce our subpoenas.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I hadn't had this in the opening, but I want to disagree
with my friend right off the top. The President of the United States
does not work for the Congress of the United States. He works for the
American people, and he heads up a branch of government that is a
coequal branch of government. So, on that, we will have a long
discussion.
Mr. Speaker, it has been a very eventful week in the Rules Committee,
and it is only Tuesday. Last night, the committee met and reported out
a rule that covers two drastically different measures. H.R. 2740 is an
appropriations package that covered first 5 and then 4 of the 12
appropriations bills for fiscal year 2020. We also considered H. Res.
430, a resolution that gives authority to the Office of the General
Counsel of the House of Representatives to seek to enforce certain
subpoenas for documents through litigation.
Shortly after we finish here, the committee will again convene to
consider the remainder of the appropriations package, which will be on
the floor as part of a separate rule tomorrow.
Meanwhile, our Members will attempt the miracle of being in two
places at once as we continue to debate H. Res. 430, which falls into
our original jurisdiction here on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 430 comes from a dispute over documents relating
to the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the
2016 Presidential election. The dispute also stems from the inherent
oversight authority of Congress and our ability to perform oversight
functions over the executive branch. It falls into the fuzzy boundaries
between the branches of governments as to when and how we may compel
the executive branch to turn over documents to the legislative branch.
I lay out that framework because there is an important point here
that is being lost. The Democratic majority clearly wants to make this
dispute entirely about this President, this Attorney General, this
White House counsel, this investigation, this subpoena of documents.
The Democrats want to focus attention there because they think it helps
them politically to do so. But this dispute really shouldn't be about
just that. It should, rather, be about the difficult and thorny
questions that emerge in a system like ours with three branches of
government with checks and balances.
In a sense, what the majority is seeking to do here today is
completely unprecedented, both in its intent and in its execution.
Consider the only other times the House has filed a lawsuit to seek to
enforce a subpoena for documents. It has happened twice before, Mr.
Speaker, once in 2007, to seek documents from former White House
Counsel Harriet Miers, and again in 2012, to seek documents from then-
Attorney General Eric Holder as a result of the congressional
investigation into the Fast and Furious scandal.
In both of these cases, the House had already voted to hold both
Miers and Holder in contempt of Congress before filing suit, which has
not yet happened in this case. In the Miers case, 138 days elapsed from
the first document request to the Judiciary Committee voting to hold
her in contempt. In the Holder case, it was significantly longer, in
that 464 days elapsed from the first document request to the committee
voting to hold him in contempt. That was well over a year.
Here, the majority is forcing us to rush forward at a much faster
pace. Just 44 days elapsed from the date of the first document request
to the Attorney General until the Judiciary Committee voted to hold him
in contempt. James Holzhauer has been champion of ``Jeopardy!'' for
longer than that.
I don't understand the majority's haste here. Without exhausting all
other options--continuing negotiation, discussion, compromise, and
turning to a vote on contempt as the last resort--the majority is,
instead, pushing this forward into litigation with the executive
branch. In doing so, they may well be placing the House in a position
that causes significant long-term damage to the institution.
When this matter goes before the courts, it will do so as a case of
first impression and under an untested legal theory. In both the Miers
and Holder cases, the House previously voted to hold those two
individuals in contempt of Congress. Nothing like that has been done
here. Using untested tactics like this could set a dangerous precedent
that harms us all, Republicans and Democrats, in the long run.

Finally, I would also note that it is not clear what this resolution
will ultimately accomplish. Since the House has not yet exercised all
the tools in its tool kit, and since it is not clear that the
negotiations with the Justice Department and the White House over the
documents at issue are at an end, this whole thing may be nothing more
than sound and fury. Indeed, given how quickly the majority is rushing
into things, it seems unlikely that the only course of action left in
the House is to file a lawsuit.
I strongly urge the majority to continue working with the Justice
Department and the White House to find a resolution to these issues
without resorting to knee-jerk lawsuits that may ultimately damage the
House as an institution.

[[Page H4405]]

Today, we are also beginning consideration of H.R. 2740, an
appropriations package covering 5 of 12 appropriations bills: Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education; Legislative Branch; Defense;
State and Foreign Operations; and Energy and Water Development. These
five bills cover over 70 percent of our total discretionary spending
for fiscal year 2020.
To be precise, Mr. Speaker, we were to do five bills. At the last
moment, the majority pulled the Legislative Branch appropriations bill.
I will let them explain why at their leisure.
As a longtime member of the Appropriations Committee, I am pleased
that we are beginning to move the appropriations bills to the floor.
Unfortunately, the bills before us have numerous flaws, most notably
that they are marked to allocation levels that aren't realistic.
As we move forward through the appropriations process, I think we
need to be clear about the challenges we face this year.
At the end of September, fiscal year 2019 expires, and sequestration
cuts contained in the Budget Control Act of 2011 will automatically
take effect for fiscal year 2020. In order to prevent that, we need to
come to a bipartisan, bicameral budget deal that the House, the Senate,
and the President can all agree on. If we don't, then it doesn't really
matter what fake number the House marks to. Sequestration will hit, and
our defense budget will automatically be slashed by 11 percent and our
nondefense budget by 9 percent below the allocations of 2019.
The spending levels in these appropriations bills are not just
ambitious; they are unrealistic. Not only are the funding levels for
many of these bills too high, so high that the Senate and the President
will never agree to them, but the allocations the Appropriations
Committee used reflect the misguided notion that any increase in
defense spending must be matched by an increase in nondefense spending
that is more than twice as high.
That is simply not a realistic assessment of our national priorities
or the fiscal limitations imposed on us by our rising national debt.
The defense provision of this bill, for example, comes in at $8 billion
less than the President told us was needed to adequately fund the
military, maintain readiness, and be prepared to confront international
threats.
After years of severe underfunding of our Armed Forces and at a time
when threats are emerging everywhere around the globe, spending less
than the administration asks for on defense in order to push more money
into domestic programs is not a wise course of action.
I am disappointed that the majority chose to strip out pro-life
provisions that have been carried in appropriations bills for years.
Instead, they added controversial pro-abortion riders that virtually
guarantee no Republican support whatsoever for this package.
As the former chair and current ranking member of the Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am
familiar with the need for compromise on that particular piece of
legislation. But by pushing forward with blatantly partisan riders like
these, the majority is guaranteeing the outcome of these bills: dead on
arrival in a Republican-led Senate and no chance of getting a
Republican President's signature.
In the coming months, I hope we work through these problems, as we
did last year, frankly. If the majority intends to move forward with
unrealistic spending levels and insists on maintaining partisan riders,
then we are simply guaranteeing a failed appropriations process.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, our failure has consequences. A best-
case scenario is a yearlong continuing resolution that funds the
government at the exact same level as the current year. That is the
best scenario if we fail. The worst-case scenario is another government
shutdown or sequestration that automatically cuts all government
funding levels. Neither of these is a good outcome for the House as an
institution, for the Federal Government, or more importantly, for the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, although I cannot support either bill before us today, I
am hopeful that, eventually, we will reach a bipartisan, bicameral
compromise on spending that the vast majority of Members in this House
can support. That requires realistic funding levels and elimination of
partisan riders from this package. The spending package before us today
may be a worthy starting point, but it will take hard work and
compromise to move the final bill that can become law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear from my friend from Oklahoma
about both of these bills. We were here together last night until
around midnight, working on the rules for these bills.
On H.R. 2740, the appropriations package that we have together, we
have authorized more than 100--I think the number is 112--bipartisan
amendments. In fact, I think the first amendment is one that is from
the gentleman from Oklahoma. We have made that first.

I won't be voting for it. I won't be supporting it, but he has the
opportunity to make his case on the floor of the House of
Representatives and to present it to colleagues.
We are proud of the fact that there are more than 100 amendments. In
fact, I think we are meeting again this afternoon, and we might adopt
dozens more amendments, for the consideration of the full House.
But on the question of H. Res. 430, which is to empower the Judiciary
Committee and the other committees in Congress to enforce our right to
obtain information that we seek, I think that this should be an
overriding, bipartisan commitment within the Article I branch, within
the Congress of the United States.
We simply cannot tolerate a posture from the President of the United
States--and it is hard for me to think of any other Congress that would
tolerate it from any other President--of noncooperation and absolute,
comprehensive, and wholesale defiance of the will of Congress in trying
to seek information.
My good friend from Oklahoma says that the President does not work to
enforce the laws of Congress; he works for the people. Well, we all
work for the people. That was my point. His job is to take care that
the laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed. We work directly
for the people.
At least until we get a national popular vote for President, the
President is not elected by the people, as we know from the 2016
election itself where the popular vote winner, who gained several
million more votes than Donald Trump did, lost the election because of
the workings of the electoral college.

{time} 1300

The Presidency was set up as an indirect mechanism, and that is
something that I think that we should be replacing. But I think it is
not appropriate to claim a popular mandate for the President when the
President emerges from the electoral college.
In any event, the President's job is to take care that the laws are
faithfully executed and also to be the Commander in Chief in times of
actual conflict, but it is up to Congress to legislate. That is what we
do. That is why it is so problematic when the President of the United
States says:

I will not accept a bipartisan congressional rejection of
billions of dollars in funding for my border wall; I am going
to declare a national emergency and then reprogram money from
other lawfully appropriated purposes.

That is a violation of the spending power of the Congress of the
United States. It is just like the President rejecting a bipartisan
repudiation of his involvement with the Saudi Government in the Yemeni
civil war. We have not declared war with Saudi Arabia against Iran or
anybody else in the Yemeni conflict, and so we don't want to be
involved in it. We don't want our money going to that bloody
humanitarian catastrophe, and yet the President simply rejects the
majority will of both Houses of Congress. That is a decisive rejection
in defiance of Congress' power to declare war.
Now what we are getting is this complete defiance of our ability to
get the information that we need. The President said it very clearly.
He basically said: No subpoenas, no witnesses--enough--and no do-overs.
So he is not going to allow us to investigate the compromised
security

[[Page H4406]]

clearance process and the White House is not going to allow us to
investigate the completely suspect corruption and distortion of the
constitutional mandate for a Census which we have got to do by virtue
of the Constitution every 10 years, and he is not going to cooperate
with any investigation into the matters that were covered by Special
Counsel Mueller; the organized, systematic comprehensive, sweeping
attack on our elections by the GRU and Russian agents or the more than
100 contacts they had with the Trump campaign or the 10 different
episodes of Presidential obstruction of justice that were set forth by
Special Counsel Mueller in his report.
We can't accept that. So this legislation in H.R. 430 will give us
the opportunity to go to court right away to enforce our subpoenas
against this unprecedented defiance of congressional power by the
President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the
great State of Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern).
Mr. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and
colleague from Oklahoma, and I thank my friend from Maryland who
reminds us that our President was constitutionally elected and that our
President was elected by the way our Constitution describes and
outlines, and we thank our President for the work he is doing.
Mr. Speaker, I cosponsored an amendment with Congressman Cole to
remove a dangerous poison pill in the appropriations bill that would
block the free exercise of rights for the American people. Congress has
long supported robust protections for rights of conscience. The right
to follow your conscience on deeply held religious and moral beliefs is
a foundational value of our country. In a free society like ours,
adherence to one's convictions should not be just tolerated but
encouraged. Our forefathers fought like hell to liberate our country
from a monarchy that mandated what to believe and how to behave.
How soon we have forgotten. It happens in small increments, with
small, minor changes here and there, but they grow larger and more
invasive. Someday you will find yourself back under the yoke, with an
oppressive government telling you what to believe and how to behave.
This conscience rule is absolutely necessary to preserve the freedom
of expression that we hold dear in our country. The rider in the Labor
HHS bill eliminating this rule is a poison pill and does not belong in
an appropriations package.
The Trump administration has vigorously supported the right for our
people to act on their religious and moral convictions. President
Trump's leadership on this issue has encouraged millions of Americans
who have seen these protections start to slip away in the past decade.
Who are we to force people to act against their convictions and
religious beliefs?
It is a slippery slope to despotism, but I think some of our
colleagues would have us go down that road in pursuit of some greater
good. I can assure you that forcing the American people to work against
their convictions and beliefs will lead us to nothing but destruction,
and I guarantee that this bill will never be signed into law if this
language remains.
This amendment must be made in order so that we can debate it and
remove the poison pill from the final bill. Otherwise, the time my
colleagues have spent on the Labor HHS bill is a giant waste of time
because it will never make it to the President's desk.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, all of us, of course, embrace and uphold the First
Amendment and the rights of religious freedom, the right to not have
government establish a religion and to participate in the free exercise
of religion and to worship or to not worship exactly as you please.
There is nothing in any of our legislation that would interfere with
anybody's right to exercise precisely their religious preference to
worship exactly as they please and to belong to whatever religious
faith or denomination they want.
I am not quite sure exactly what the gentleman was referring to. We
know that the idea of a religious freedom to discriminate has been
asserted ever since the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where
the hotel and motel, lunch counter and department store owners
said that they had a religious right to only serve the customers that
they wanted and that it violated their religious faith to have
interracial parties seated in restaurants or at the lunch counter. Our
Supreme Court rejected that, and this Congress has rejected that.

There have been similar efforts to say we have a constitutional right
not to serve gay and lesbian customers. That has been rejected, and I
hope that this Congress will also reject it.
We passed the Equality Act very proudly to add protection for LGBT
people to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I hope that the Senate will
go along with it.
In any event, there is nothing in any of the legislation before us
and none has been cited which violates any of the free exercise rights
of the people. So with that, unless I hear anything further, I am not
moved by how anybody is affected by this appropriation negatively.
My other good friend from Oklahoma referenced the phrase checks and
balances, and that does appear in the Federalist Papers. I think it is
in Federalist 51. It actually refers to the relationship between the
House and the Senate. That was the design of the Framers of the
Constitution that the House and the Senate would check and balance each
other. But the Framers were very clear that we were overthrowing
monarchy. We didn't want monarchy. That is why we got rid of the king.
The revolutionaries and the rebels who gave us America and who wrote
the Constitution were trying to institute a new form of government
representing We the People. That is why we are so proud to be able to
serve in the people's House here along with our friends in the Senate.
But the President's core job is to take care that our laws are
faithfully executed. We have no kings here; we have no monarchs here.
That is why we have the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution which
says that none of us who serves in Washington can accept any present--
any emoluments, which just means a payment--any office or title from a
prince, a king, or a foreign government without the consent of
Congress.
That is a cardinal principle in the Constitution. It is our original
anti-corruption principle because the Framers did not want the
President or Members of Congress selling out the country. They wanted
complete, undivided loyalty by those of us who come to Washington, who
aspire and obtain the public office to have complete, undivided loyalty
to the American people and not to lobbyists for foreign governments,
agents, and saboteurs.
So that is another real problem that this President seems not to
recognize. That provision obligates him whenever he receives any money
from a foreign government through his hotel or his office towers or any
of his going businesses that he has kept going in the course of his
tenure, whenever he receives any of that money, he has got to come to
Congress to ask for our permission and for our consent.
Mr. Speaker, we can show you records from lots of prior Presidents
who came to Congress to ask for a consent because they received a
Persian rug, or a shawl, or cufflinks. Yet--at least according to court
reports and media reports--this President has been receiving hundreds
of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars from foreign
governments. In fact, the President I think made a voluntary deposit he
said of the profits from foreign government receipts of $350,000 to the
U.S. Treasury without any accounting to us, without any receipts, and
without asking for our consent.
So even if the Constitution says that you can't accept the profits
from foreign payments, which it doesn't, it says you can't accept
foreign payments. That would be insufficient because Congress has got
to offer its consent.
Look, we need to lay down the law about all of these matters. When we
ask for a document, we want the document. When we issue a subpoena from
the United States Congress, you comply with the subpoena. When we ask
for

[[Page H4407]]

a witness, the witness arrives. That is what H.R. 430 is all about. We
have got to empower Congress to enforce its will.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). My good friend is the most
eloquent advocate for life in this Chamber.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
rule.
Earlier this year, Mr. Speaker, President Trump made it clear in a
letter that he will veto any piece of legislation that undermines or
nullifies any pro-life policy, regulation, or rule.
The bill facilitated by this rule reverses several life-affirming
pro-life policies, including conscience protection, Title X reform, the
protecting life in global health assistance, and more.
No one, Mr. Speaker--including doctors, nurses, and LPNs--and no
entity like a hospital or a health insurance plan should ever be
compelled against their will into performing, facilitating, or
subsidizing abortion.
First, the approps bill overturns the conscience protection final
rule, leaving many at risk of pressure, harassment and coercion.
Second, in late February, HHS promulgated the Protect Life Rule to
reassert portions of President Ronald Reagan's Title X rule, including
ending co-location of abortion clinics with family planning clinics
subsidized by Title X.
Third, H.R. 2740, the underlying bill, repeals and bans future
promulgation by any President of protecting life in global health
assistance, a significant reiteration and expansion of President
Reagan's Mexico City policy, a policy designed to ensure that U.S.
taxpayers are not funding foreign NGOs that perform or promote abortion
as a method of family planning.

Mr. Speaker, why is this so important? Because women and children,
both home and abroad, deserve better than the violence of abortion.
The humanity of the unborn child is beyond doubt, yet the pro-
abortion movement, like some kind of modern-day flat Earth society,
continues to cling to outdated, indefensible arguments cloaked in
euphemism. Even the seemingly benign word ``choice'' withers under
scrutiny.
Choice to do what?
Dismember a baby?
Take pills to starve a child to death and then forcibly expel her or
him from the womb?
Inject chemical poisons that kill the baby?
At the end of this process, Mr. Speaker, important policies embedded
in the approps bill will be signed into law, but reversal of pro-life
policies will be vetoed. This legislation will be vetoed and the veto
will be sustained by this Congress.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I still have not heard a single instance offered from anybody whose
religious freedoms under the Constitution of the United States are
threatened by any of the legislation here.
I do know that the ultimate logic of the argument that we just heard
here is to support legislation like what was just passed in the State
of Alabama. In Alabama today--please read an article in the Washington
Post this morning, Mr. Speaker--in Alabama today if this legislation is
signed into law, a 15-year-old girl who is raped by her step-uncle not
only would not be able to obtain an abortion, because there is no
exception for rape or incest in the ban that the legislature just
passed, but she would be compelled to have him involved in the raising
of the child because Alabama protects the paternity rights of the
rapist. So it is one of only two States in the country where a rapist
continues to have parenthood rights in the child.
So get this straight. If what we are hearing is actually enacted into
law--and I understand my colleagues to be encouraging legislation like
this around the country, like the law in Alabama--we will have a
situation where girls who are 15 or 14 or 13 or 16 years old who are
raped by their stepfathers or step-uncles must carry a child to term,
have the baby, and in some States be forced to raise the baby with the
rapist.
So I don't think that is where we are today in America under Planned
Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, and certainly the majority is
going to stand very strong for healthcare for women and reproductive
freedom for women and men to make their own decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for
his courtesy.
Mr. Speaker, there is a document that I hold in my hand that covers
the epidemic apparently that is taking siege over America. It contains
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United
States.
The Declaration of Independence paraphrases we are all created equal
with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.

{time} 1315

I am honored to serve in this body and, with honor, walk through the
halls and look at the historical depictions of the early years.
Just coming back from D-Day in Normandy, I am reminded of the brave
men and, certainly, women who served in the United States military,
supporters in World War II, but, in particular, the men who stormed the
Normandy beach.
I am reminded, I am sure, of the words of General Dwight D.
Eisenhower, who said: The world is watching, and they will join you in
marching to victory.
This Constitution has the Ninth Amendment, the right to privacy. It
has the right to freedom of religion and freedom of access and freedom
of speech. And all that is being done here today is to acknowledge not
only the poor 15-year-old, 13-year-old, and 14-year-old that my good
friend from Maryland talked about, but, all over the country, denying
poor women access to health services that should really be based upon
their faith, their God, their family, and their medical provider.
In some of the bills in Missouri and in some of the bills that are
being proposed in Georgia, Alabama, and in my own State of Texas, it is
litigation that would get you healthcare. It is no respect of the
individual human being, the person, who may have to go back to the
antics of yesteryear, dealing with the tactics of coat hangers of which
many of us are aware.
Let me also say that underlying in this rule is the opportunity for
the force of the authority of the Article I Congress to enforce
individuals to come before congressional committees, such as the
Committee on the Judiciary, which we will debate later.
It is invested in this Constitution, because of Article I authority
and the collegial response that the Founding Fathers wanted us to have,
that there are no unequal branches--there is a number one branch--and
one branch should not ignore and disrespect the other branch.
Therefore, if Article I branch, which we are in, asks for witnesses
and then is blocked by another branch that has no greater status--read
the Constitution.
In this rule, we have tried to correct the imbalance and
inappropriateness that is occurring in this body and in this process,
and so I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
legislation to restore the Constitution.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. GONZALEZ of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule that would
provide for consideration of H.R. 2740. This package provides funding
for several items that would benefit my district in northeast Ohio, but
it falls short in several key regards, including funding for key
programs that would help keep our children safe.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, this package fails to provide adequate
funding for the School Safety National Activities program, which gives
grants to schools to support safe learning environments, including
programs to combat substance abuse and cultivate academic success.
This bill provides $80 million less in funding than what the
administration requested. I offered an amendment to raise that number
by $10 million, but

[[Page H4408]]

my colleagues in the majority blocked it from consideration.
I think we can all agree that school safety is of the utmost
importance and an area that is vital for Congress to invest in. I hope
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will work with me to assure
that programs to protect our children, like the School Safety National
Activities program, remain a congressional priority.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).
Mr. SMUCKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oklahoma for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose the rule and spending
package being debated before us. Not only does this massive spending
package blow our budget caps by nearly $200 billion, but this flawed
legislation severely undermines critical protections for the lives of
the unborn.
I am very proud of the work that the Trump administration has been
doing to finally make Title X about family planning and not a way of
using taxpayer money to fund abortions. The administration's new Title
X provisions draw a bright line between abortion and family planning,
while ensuring taxpayer dollars are put towards comprehensive,
preventive, and primary care for women.
These new regulations will also make it easier for faith-based
clinics to provide care through the Title X program, which will expand
access to care for families. Yet, under this partisan piece of
legislation, these protections are stripped and taxpayer funding for
abortion clinics is increased. This is unacceptable.
The fight to give a voice to the unborn will not be swayed by
partisan poison pills. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. COLE. 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 immediately to bring up H.R. 3056 for
consideration under an open rule.
The bill provides $4.5 billion of funding to address the immediate
humanitarian crisis on the southern border. This is a crisis of
significant proportions, Mr. Speaker.
Our facilities for holding new arrivals, particularly children and
the vulnerable unaccompanied minors, are already at the breaking point.
Simply put, we need more resources, and we need them today.
This is not the first time we have needed to provide supplemental
appropriations for this purpose. Back in 2014, then-President Barack
Obama asked us for $3.7 billion in supplemental resources for precisely
the same purpose. He got it. At the time, we had 60,000 unaccompanied
minors who arrived in 2014. We face a similar and, frankly, larger
humanitarian crisis today.

President Obama was right to request supplemental funds to deal with
the crisis then. We would be right to appropriate supplemental funds to
address that similar crisis now.
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 Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
this rule. The rule demonstrates once again that the Democrat majority
refuses to acknowledge, accept, or address the very real crisis at our
southern border.
New numbers recently came out illustrating the magnitude of the
crisis. CBP detained more than 144,000 migrants in the month of May.
This was the third consecutive month when we had in excess of 100,000
migrants detained at the border: 101,000 in March, 109,000 in April,
and 144,000 in May. We are on track to apprehend over 1 million
migrants this fiscal year, approximately the population of Austin,
Texas.
Smugglers and cartels continue to preach that now is the time to come
to the United States. They call children ``permisos,'' or permits, and
exploit them to get scores of adults unrelated to the children across
the border.
These criminal organizations run an international smuggling operation
filled with misery and abuse. Migrants who survive the smugglers often
arrive in poor health, physically exhausted, and in need of urgent
medical care.
The men and women of CBP are doing the best they can to respond to
this humanitarian crisis, but they have run out of space to safely
house and process the unprecedented numbers of family units seeking
entry into the United States. In the next couple of weeks, Health and
Human Services will run out of funds to feed and shelter the vulnerable
unaccompanied children.
Four weeks ago, the President and Congress sent an urgent request for
supplemental appropriations to address this crisis. Ranking Member
Granger and I filed an amendment to the minibus which would have
provided the $4.5 billion requested by the President.
It would have replenished critical funds needed to feed and shelter
migrant families and unaccompanied children. It would have provided
urgent medical care and transportation services, and it would pay the
growing cost of overtime for the men and women of DHS working on the
front lines of this crisis.
Unfortunately, for the third time in the last month, the majority
refused to make our amendment in order. Democrats haven't approved a
dime for this crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Because of the political dysfunction in their
own Caucus, they stubbornly refuse to put forward any solutions. It has
gotten to the point where editorial boards in some of the Nation's most
liberal cities are now calling Democrats out for their inaction.
Democrats need to stop denying the facts and blaming the President
for this crisis. The time has come to face reality and work with the
President and Republicans in Congress to immediately resolve this
humanitarian crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to defeat the previous question on
this rule. If we do that, we can finally bring this critically needed
supplemental funding to the House for a vote.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my friend made reference a little bit earlier to
amendments. He talked about the total number of amendments, but he left
out the distribution of amendments. So, as the House considers this
rule, I think we ought to take a look at how the Rules Committee has
handled making amendments in order so far this Congress.
The rule on the floor today is making 106 amendments in order, out of
540 submitted, with hopefully more to come with tomorrow's rule.
Today's rule includes 22 amendments sponsored solely by Republicans.
Sadly, this is considered an improvement over the majority's previous
efforts.
With today's rule, in total, this Congress, 73 percent of all
amendments made in order have been sponsored solely by Democrats--73
percent. Just 16 percent are sponsored by Republicans, with 11 percent
bipartisan.
How does this compare with the last Congress? When Republicans were
the majority party, 45 percent of all amendments made in order were
sponsored solely by Democrats. Only 38 percent were sponsored solely by
Republicans, with another 17 percent being bipartisan.
At the beginning of this Congress, the Democratic majority repeatedly
promised a new, robust, and open process at the Rules Committee. They
pledged that good ideas would be welcomed, no matter where they came
from, and that thoughtful amendments would not be blocked.
Unfortunately, they have a long way to go to keep that promise. I
think the numbers speak volumes.
We are 5 months into the 116th Congress. Should we expect this trend
of shutting out minority party ideas to continue? Should we expect the
same course of action in our rule tomorrow and in our rule on the
second appropriations package next week and in

[[Page H4409]]

other rules in the weeks and months to come?
When will the promises made by the Democratic majority be kept? If
not now, when?
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge opposition to the rule. The rule will
make in order two measures: H. Res. 430 and H.R. 2740.

H. Res. 430 is a premature and ineffective resolution that will push
the House forward into untested and ill-timed litigation with the
executive branch over the subpoena of documents. While the House has an
important oversight role to play, we must be careful to exercise that
role wisely and carefully, lest we cause long-term damage to the
institution.
H.R. 2740 is a package of 5 of the 12 outstanding appropriations
bills that use unrealistic allocation levels and eliminate longstanding
pro-life protections that must be restored before these bills can
garner any Republican support.
I actually look forward to working with my colleagues in the House
and the Senate as we move forward in the appropriations process, and I
urge the majority to compromise with the Senate and the White House in
order to achieve a final spending deal that avoids drastic
sequestration cuts or, worse yet, another government shutdown.
I think that is actually the great lesson of the appropriations
process, Mr. Speaker. We know we can do this. We did it last year, and
we did it pretty well together.
But my friends have to get past the idea that they can impose their
will on a Republican Senate and a Republican President. They are simply
not going to be able to do that. They are going to have to bargain to a
middle ground and compromise.
In the Appropriations Committee, as a rule, we do that, and we do it
pretty well. I am hopeful that we can continue going forward on that
front.
I am concerned, however, that the vitriol, if you will, that we see
in the investigative and oversight efforts of our friends will spill
into that process and lead us into a very difficult situation in
September.
So, as we move forward on the appropriations front, again, I hope all
of us relearn the virtues of compromise, understand that we were all
sent here by the American people, that we have to work with one another
to accomplish something, and that none of us can impose their will on
the other.
With that, I look forward to working with my friend and with his
colleagues and, certainly, through the appropriations process to making
sure that the government is appropriately funded and well governed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1330

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole)
on H.R. 2740 and H.R. 4340, and I do urge all of our colleagues to
support this rule for this legislation.
I do hope my friend from Oklahoma will tutor some of his colleagues,
like the last speaker, who referred to the ``Democrat majority.''
Democrat is the noun. Democratic is the adjective for our party, and I
think that would be a basic gesture of interparty civility if they
would follow that fairly easy grammatical device.
Mr. Speaker, one of the other Members from the other side, I think
from Oklahoma, talked about some education matters, so I want to go to
some statistics that actually mean something to the American people. I
think we can refute all of the statistics that were advanced by my
friend from Oklahoma, as I said.
There are more than 100 amendments that we are going to be bringing
up today, and we are going to be adding more of them, and we certainly
don't want to endure lectures from people who belong to the caucus that
ran the most closed Congress in the history of the United States.
But here are some figures that actually mean something to the
American people. Our bill provides a total of $75.9 billion in
appropriations for the Education Department, which is $4.5 billion
above the 2019-enacted level, and $11.9 billion beyond what the
President asked for. So that means dramatic increases in everything
from IDEA special education spending, to education, innovation, and
research programs, to spending for teacher professional development
evidence-based models and so on.
We are also increasing money for student financial assistance for
Pell Grants for higher education, because it has become too difficult
for our young people to make their way through college, and they are
graduating, basically, with a mortgage of 100 or $150,000, but they
don't have a house to go with it. So this majority is committed to
alleviating the burden on America's college students.
Mr. Speaker, we are trying to make progress, under very difficult
circumstances with this President, for the American people in the realm
of education, healthcare, scientific and medical research. We are
making that progress, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this
legislation.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 431

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 8. That immediately upon adoption of this resolution,
the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3056) to provide supplemental appropriations relating to
border security, 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. Points of order against provisions in the
bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are
waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply during
consideration of the bill. When the committee rises and
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that
the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3056.
Mr. RASKIN. 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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to 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; and
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 190, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 245]

YEAS--227

[[Page H4410]]

Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--190

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--15

Axne
Bost
Buck
Clay
Davis (CA)
Gottheimer
Green (TN)
Griffith
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
King (IA)
Kuster (NH)
Long
Ryan
Wright

{time} 1402

Messrs. JOHN W. ROSE of Tennessee, BILIRAKIS, and FORTENBERRY changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. LANGEVIN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 190, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 246]

YEAS--227

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--190

[[Page H4411]]

NOT VOTING--15

Axne
Bost
Buck
Clay
Davis (CA)
Gottheimer
Green (TN)
Griffith
Hastings
Herrera Beutler
King (IA)
Kuster (NH)
Long
Ryan
Wright

{time} 1412

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.

____________________