[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

     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

[[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

     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

[[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.

                          ____________________