Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 182 (Thursday, November 14, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 182 (Thursday, November 14, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8838-H8845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HR. 4863, UNITED STATES EXPORT FINANCE
AGENCY ACT OF 2019; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 695 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 695

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. 4863) to promote the competitiveness of the
United States, to reform and reauthorize the United States
Export Finance Agency, 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 Financial Services. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Financial Services now printed in the bill, an amendment in
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 116-36 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. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further
amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except
those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such further amendments are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the
House with such further amendments as may have been adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Section 201 of House Resolution 6 is amended as
follows:
(1) In subsection (f)(3), strike ``At the conclusion of the
first session of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress'' and
insert ``By October 30, 2020''.
(2) In subsection (g)(1), strike ``on February 1, 2020''
and insert ``at the conclusion of the One Hundred Sixteenth
Congress''.
Sec. 3. House Resolution 661 is hereby adopted.
Sec. 4. House Resolution 693 is hereby adopted.
Sec. 5. (a) At any time on the legislative day of Thursday,
November 21, 2019, it shall be in order without intervention
of any point of order to consider in the House a motion to
discharge the Committee on Foreign Affairs from further
consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 70)
directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War
Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from
hostilities in the Syrian Arab Republic that have not been
authorized by Congress, if offered by Representative Gabbard
of Hawaii. The motion shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening motion except 20
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by
Representative Gabbard of Hawaii and an opponent. The
question of adoption of the motion may be subject to
postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.
(b) The provisions of section 7 of the War Powers
Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546) shall not apply during the
remainder of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress to House
Concurrent Resolution 70.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall),
pending which I yield myself such time

[[Page H8839]]

as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 695, providing for the consideration
of H.R. 4863, the United States Export Finance Agency Act, under a
structured rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services,
makes in order 21 amendments, and provides for a motion to recommit. It
also provides that, upon passage of the rule, H. Res. 661 and H. Res.
693 will be hereby adopted. Additionally, it makes the motion to
discharge H. Con. Res. 70 in order on November 21 if offered by
Representative Gabbard, debatable for 20 minutes. Lastly, the rule
extends the positive work of the Select Committee on the Modernization
of Congress to the conclusion of the 116th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, given that the United States is the third largest
exporter of goods in the world, maintaining and supporting this
industry is imperative for our economic well-being and for good-paying
jobs across the country. In 2018, we shipped over $2.5 trillion worth
of commercial aircraft, machinery, industrial supplies, consumer goods,
and agricultural products overseas.
The Export-Import Bank, or Ex-Im Bank, plays a large role in
supporting that business. Through direct loans, medium- and long-term
loan guarantees, working capital, and insurance, the Ex-Im Bank steps
in where private financing is unavailable and has been supporting
American exporters for nearly a century. Because of work like this, in
the last 10 years, Ex-Im has created 1.7 million American jobs.
Over the last several years, we have seen the Bank go through a lot
of unnecessary political turmoil. After successfully reauthorizing the
Bank in 2015, the Senate has failed to confirm board members. Under
current law, without Senate action, the Bank was left almost
inoperable.
The effects were felt across the Nation, and in my own district, it
was affected there. In the past 5 years, my district in northern
California has been home to nine exporters, of which seven are small
businesses and five are owned by women and minorities. After Senate
negligence left the Bank unable to do its work, today there are only
three exporters remaining in my district.
In today's bill to reauthorize the Bank, we make substantial
improvements that not only address the political problems displayed in
the Senate, but also improve and diversify the Bank's activities. In
short, the United States Export Finance Agency Act will help support
even more jobs, with new emphasis on small business, women- and
minority-owned businesses.
As a former small business owner, I am encouraged by this effort. To
stay on top, the United States must stay competitive. This bill gives
us that chance to help workers, help businesses, and help our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
and thank my friend from California for yielding me the time.
I want to tell a different story, Mr. Speaker. You and I haven't
gotten a chance to work together down here when I have really gotten to
come down here and really sell these rules, because back when I was in
the majority on the Rules Committee, we didn't always get it right;
but, as a rank-and-file member of the committee, I always had a chance
to improve the bill, to make it better, to try to hear some voices.
My friend from Florida is not down here with us today. My friend from
California knows, the worst thing about having Alcee Hastings on your
committee is that he gets all fired up and all geared up, and you
almost get upset because so often he is right, and he is pointing out
your flaws and he is making you do it better. We need more of that from
one another, Mr. Speaker, where we get ourselves wound up, not about
Republicans and Democrats, but about how to do the process better.
I know that your week and my friend from California's week has been
just like my week. It started out with Veterans Day events back home in
your district. And you didn't find a man or a woman who said, ``Let's
do better for Republican veterans but not so much for Democratic
veterans,'' or vice versa. You found men and women who were proud of
their service. You found men and women who wanted to support those men
and women who had served us. You found folks grateful for our
opportunities to be in community with one another and do better
tomorrow than we did yesterday.
Then we showed up here on Tuesday after Veterans Day break and we
started with our suspension calendar.
For the life of me, I don't understand why this institution hides all
the good things that it does and accentuates all the controversial
things it does. If we took a poll outside the Capitol today, Mr.
Speaker, I just want to ask you, and I want to make sure I get it
right: How many folks walking past the Capitol today know that, in a
bipartisan way, you and I and the gentleman from California came
together on Tuesday and passed General Bergman's GI Bill Planning Act
to ease the burden on new servicemembers as they try to sort out
accessing their education benefits?
This is an important issue that has been plaguing our veterans. We
have been talking about it here in this institution. We got together on
Monday, and we did it together. Not one headline, not one 6 p.m. news
story. Republicans and Democrats standing together in this House on
behalf of veterans who were not being served as well as we knew we
could serve them, we fixed it together, but that is not what we are
talking about.

How many folks, Mr. Speaker, if we go outside today, are going to
know that we passed Ms. Brownley's Deborah Sampson Act, which
recognizes the different needs that women veterans and newborn children
have and established a department within the VA to make sure those
needs are met?
Yes, the VA was formed as a male-centric institution. Of course, in
2019, there are going to be needs that were unmet. We have known that.
We have talked about that. We have pushed that down the road. But this
House this week came together, Republicans and Democrats, to solve that
issue once and for all, but I challenge you to find somebody standing
outside who knows that is what their U.S. House of Representatives has
been working on this week.
What about Mr. Cunningham's VA Tele-Hearing Modernization Act? You
have the same concerns in your veterans community that I do, Mr.
Speaker: folks trying to file their appeals, trying to get in touch
with those hearing boards, but because their mobility is limited,
because they are distant from those population centers, they can't get
that done. Mr. Cunningham's bill improves the ability to do that with
the telecommunications that are available to us in 2019.
Of course, we should have gotten that done. Of course, we should
have. We have been working on it; we have been perfecting it. This
week, this House, Republicans and Democrats, came together and did that
for veterans, too.
Mr. Harder's Protecting Families of Fallen Servicemembers Act, to
ensure that family members of servicemen and -women and Active-Duty
reservists who were killed or seriously injured on Active Duty are
allowed to terminate their financial dealings back home in a way that
is easy.
My father passed away last summer, Mr. Speaker. It is incredibly
difficult when you lose a family member to deal with all of those end-
of-life issues, all of those financial issues. The last thing our
service families need to be dealing with is sorting through all of that
paperwork.
We have now come together in a collaborative partnership way to solve
that issue. I challenge you to find a man or woman outside the Capitol
who knows that.
Now, why do I tell you that story, Mr. Speaker? I tell you that story
because that was just Monday and Tuesday, a little bit of Wednesday,
and we are not talking about that on the floor of this House. Instead,
I am down here today to talk about the Ex-Im Bank

[[Page H8840]]

bill, which is an important bill, an important bill that we could have
done in a bipartisan way but didn't.
I don't know if you remember those headlines. I brought them down
here with me, Mr. Speaker, if you don't recall them. This is when we
produced the bipartisan Ex-Im Bank bill, the one that was going to
committee, the one that Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry
worked out together in a bipartisan way back in June: ``Export-Import
Bank Deal in Peril Amid Democratic Backlash.''

{time} 1245

The bipartisan bill that had been worked out didn't meet the
standards of some in the Democratic Caucus. The bill got pulled back.
``Democrats Defy Waters on Ex-Im Bank Restrictions''. Again, this is
a bill to reform the Ex-Im Bank. It imposed some new restrictions. The
Democratic Caucus pushed back. The bipartisan bill was pulled.
What we have before us today, Mr. Speaker, is a bill that is
completely partisan in its passage. The only thing that is bipartisan
about the bill today is the folks that voted against it. Republicans
and Democrats said: No, this is not the right bill. Only Democrats
said: This is the right bill.
All of these things we could be doing in partnership, things like Ex-
Im Bank that started in partnership. It seems we go out of our way to
focus on our divisions instead of our successes.
So when we went to the Rules Committee in the midst of all of these
great veterans bills passing the floor of the House, we advocated to
make improvements to the Ex-Im Bank bill. Again, this was a bill that
started out as a bipartisan bill, a collaborative bill, one that had
been sorted out between Republicans and Democrats so that we could move
forward, and it turned into a partisan bill.
We went up to the Rules Committee to try to get some Republican
amendments made in order to try to improve the bill in some way.
I know it is popular, and the lore back home is if you are in a
different party, you don't have anything productive to add to the
debate. I hear that at some county meetings, and I am sure my friends
on the other side of the aisle do, too. It is just nonsense.
Having good ideas does not have a Republican or Democratic
requirement to it. Folks on both sides of the aisle have something to
offer.
But when Republicans brought their ideas to the Rules Committee, Mr.
Speaker, with the exception of two Republican amendments, every other
idea was rejected. Every other idea was rejected.
Now, that is the way it went in committee, too, Mr. Speaker. If you
weren't following the committee hearings, the amendments in committee
the Republicans offered were rejected on a party-line vote.
They had their chance in the Rules Committee to improve upon it.
Those amendments: rejected one by one.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, and it gives me no pleasure to say this,
because my chairman on the Rules Committee works very hard, the last
two rules I have been down here to talk about, Republicans got the same
number or even a few more amendments than Democrats got. It was the
first time it had happened that I had been down here carrying such a
rule, and it did bring some partnership back to the institution.
But for this bill, the Ex-Im Bank, how do we finance trade in
America, not a partisan issue, we have got individual Democratic
Members who have been offered more amendments personally than the
entire Republican Party has collectively. Let me say that again, Mr.
Speaker, because this institution is divided roughly down the middle
here. I have got individual Members of the Democratic Party who have
been offered personally more opportunities to change and improve this
bill than the entire Republican side of the aisle combined. Combined.
It is as if we go out of our way to find division in what ought to be
partnership issues.
Eighty-one percent of the amendments that are offered are Democratic
amendments; 17 Democratic amendments made in order, two Republican
amendments, two bipartisan amendments.
The funny thing about this institution, Mr. Speaker, and you see it
better from your chair than any of us do from our chairs, is that if
you are in the majority, you get to win. Two things are important to
winning. Being in the majority means you have the votes. Now you have
to bring a good idea to pair with those votes. You can carry the day.
We have gotten into that habit, Mr. Speaker, of having all
Republicans or all of Democrats carry the bills one direction or the
other.
Where are those opportunities, like we did on veteran bill after
veteran bill after veteran bill on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week,
to come together and do things collaboratively?
I will give you another example. I don't understand what the self-
loathing is from time to time here, Mr. Speaker, that prevents us from
celebrating what is the most democratic institution in the world today.
This rule that we are talking about today hides deep within it an
extension of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. The
Select Committee on Modernization is a bipartisan committee, it is the
only one we have right now, Mr. Speaker, equal number of Republicans
and Democrats. Why? Because they are not working on partisan issues.
They are trying to improve the institution. They are trying to improve
the process. They are trying to make this institution work better for
the American people.
It is led by two great Members of this institution: Derek Kilmer out
of Washington State, Tom Graves out of the great State of Georgia.
Mr. Kilmer is a Democrat, Mr. Graves is a Republican. They have been
leading this committee in partnership together, tackling thorny issue
after thorny issue in a collaborative way.
The House only authorized the committee for a year. This rule gives
them a second year. It is a great idea, it is a great thing to do.
Because this is a rule and because it contains all of these
provisions that completely shut out Republican contributions on the
Financial Services legislation that is before us today, it is going to
pass on a party-line vote. All the Democrats are going to vote ``yes,''
many having not read it, as is the function of rules, all Republicans
are going to vote ``no.''
We have a chance here to have taken that language out, to have done
that together, to have talked about the successes we have had
collaboratively on the Modernization Committee. We are missing that
chance today.
I am not enough of a failed student in mathematics, Mr. Speaker, to
believe that I am going to prevail on the vote on the rule today. I
have done the math again in my head. They still have more votes than we
have. I am prepared to lose.

What I am not prepared to do is give up on doing better.
I challenge my friends on both sides of the aisle to find a partisan
advantage in extending the Modernization Committee hidden inside the
rule instead of having that debate on the floor of the House. You won't
find it there.
I challenge the body to find a partisan advantage to spending 10
minutes on Tuesday talking about serving veterans in a bipartisan way
and spending 2 hours on Thursday and Friday talking about financial
services in a way that could have been bipartisan, but instead has been
converted to a strictly partisan issue, and to add insult to injury,
has denied all but two Republican amendments and bipartisan voices to
the debate.
I know that habits are difficult things to break. Some of the bad
habits that we are in in this institution started under Republican
leadership, some of the bad habits that we are in in this institution
started under Democratic leadership.
If we want to have a day of debate on who is to blame, I have a
pretty good idea how those lines would fall out. I am not interested in
that day of debate. I am interested in a day of debate not talking
about who is to blame, but talking about how we are working together to
fix it.
Because I don't know if your constituency is anything like mine, but
my constituency is starting to think that we have given up working
together to fix it. When my constituency turns on Fox News or MSNBC,
that is not what the talking head of the day is talking about.
The thing that keeps me up at night, Mr. Speaker, isn't all the
things we are voting against, it is all the things we

[[Page H8841]]

miss an opportunity to vote for, those things that, because we are here
in community together today, we have an opportunity to fix.
I have got one for you, if you are interested and if you haven't had
a chance to take a look at it. It is the Adoptee Citizenship Act, Mr.
Speaker. It is just crazy to me.
The best part of this job, as my friend from California knows, is
that really smart people spend time with us to make us smarter.
The Adoptee Citizenship Act, it is H.R. 2731, is a bill that my
Democratic colleague, Adam Smith, and I have offered together. When
American families adopted children from overseas in the 1970s and
1980s, those children didn't automatically get citizenship.
You would think an American family adopts a child, that child has
American parents, they are going to become an American citizen. Not so,
Mr. Speaker. It is an incredibly long process.
Now, in the 1970s and 1980s, we didn't care that much about that, but
fast forward to September 11, 2001, we started talking a lot about
citizenship status, only to find out that thousands upon thousands of
Americans didn't have their citizenship because their parents didn't
know they had to file all of this additional paperwork.
Now, who among us is opposed to letting American families that have
been American families for 40 years, citizens who were adopted into
American families, get that citizenship document and live the normal
life that we all thought they were supposed to be living here? H.R.
2731.
The list of things that we do collaboratively, cooperatively that
make differences for the American people is as long as any statement
anyone is going to read on the floor of the House today, and it is not
going to be what we celebrate this week.
The last vote today is at 2 o'clock. We are going to do amendment
debate for the rest of the day. If we don't start spending more time on
this floor celebrating those things that we are doing together, Mr.
Speaker, we are going to lose the confidence of our constituency back
home. I dare say, for many families, they have lost confidence in us
already.
I don't shy away from the serious fights we are going to have down
here at all. This is supposed to be a place where serious people come
together and disagree about some ideas and sort it all out.
What I take issue with is when we stop trying to sort it all out and
when we send the message back home that instead of succeeding on behalf
of our bosses, we are actually just arguing amongst ourselves. It is
not true. It is not true.
We are missing another opportunity today, as our ranking member said
in the Rules Committee debate last night, to do better. I know that we
have men and women on this floor, in this institution who want to do
better.
Can we fix it this afternoon? Maybe not. Will we fix it if we stop
focusing on it? Definitely not.
My commitment to my colleagues, for better or for worse, is that I
will spend my next 14 months focusing on it as long as my friend from
California continues to yield me 30 minutes in the Rules Committee
debate, for which I am grateful.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. DeSaulnier) for his leadership, and my good friend from Georgia, I
thank him for his explanation of the process of democracy in this
place.
But I am excited to announce that this is a bipartisan effort,
because the bipartisan aspect of it are the results of how this
legislation will impact all of America irrespective, not respecting,
their region, their faith, or their party.
Let me be very clear to say what we are actually talking about today
and the real-life stories that make a difference. It is called the
Export-Import Bank and it is legislated as the United States Export
Finance Agency, and its short name, as I said, Export-Import.
What does that mean?
I rise to support it, because it means something to individual
businesses. It means something to rural American farmers. It means
something to small manufacturers.

We have been documenting that manufacturing is going down,
manufacturing based upon how you sell your products.
This is a 10-year plan with $175 billion to help those businesses,
those small farms, those entrepreneurs in your community. That is jobs.
What it means is the company that makes light bulbs can now export
those to developing nations on the continent of Africa or they can go
deep into Southeast Asia or Asia and sell products from the United
States to a foreign country.
For those of us who have seen the lopsidedness, there are governments
that actually fund businesses outside the United States. We don't do
that, mostly, unless it is through a grant or through a funding for a
project that we need, and so you are on your own.
But this is going to provide small businesses with an extra hand up.
It is going to help those who are, in particular, minority and women-
owned businesses, along with others. It is going to create a process so
that it does not lapse.
We had a period where there was no quorum. We couldn't help small
businesses.
I remember sitting in a room with this company in a foreign country,
a U.S. company that was there, and they said, ``If it had not been for
the Export-Import Bank, we would have lost 300 employees in the United
States.''

{time} 1300

This is bipartisan. This is where we help people, no matter who they
are. I am a strong supporter of this bill because it takes into
consideration working men and women, and it takes into consideration
the environment.
All of our union friends, who provide a pathway of success for
working Americans, support this bill because it helps bring back
manufacturing. We support it because it gives alternative options for
energy a boost where jobs can be created with renewable energy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just simply say that you have to
live this to understand it, and I have spoken to those businesses that
have benefited from Export-Import.
It sounds like a name that you can't get your hands around, but just
understand it simply. You want to do business overseas. You want to get
your products overseas. It is a big hurdle. You need additional
finance. This is the place to come.
And they have been successful in paying for themselves. That $175
billion is over 10 years, but it pays for itself with the number of
businesses that Americans can take advantage of and create new
businesses for the sole purpose of selling that product overseas,
selling that small farmer produce, what is on that small farm, allowing
them to send it to markets that are desperate for the wonderful bounty
of food products that we are able to raise in this wonderful country.
In particular, I would like to add, it is a good place for veterans
who want to start their business, to add to their business, because
many of them, obviously, understand the international realm.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I support this bill, the Ex-Im
Bank, and I hope that my colleagues will support it.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I
agree with every good thing my friend from Texas said that the Ex-Im
Bank is able to do, which is why, when this bill began, it was a
bipartisan bill by the chairwoman of the committee and the ranking
Republican on the committee. It devolved from that so that, as it
passed out of committee, it is not a bipartisan bill.
The only thing bipartisan about this bill is the opposition to it.
Republicans and Democrats opposed it in committee. Only Democrats
support it because of the partisan turn that it took.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Lucas), the gentleman from the Financial Services Committee who tried
to make the bill better. He offered two amendments in the Rules
Committee that would have brought bipartisan support to this bill.

[[Page H8842]]

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to reject
the rule that would enable a vote later this week on reauthorizing the
Export-Import Bank.
Many of you will say: ``Why, Frank, of all people, would you come to
the floor to ask for the rejection of the rule and the underlying
bill?'' The reason they would ask that is because no one has worked
harder than I have, in my career here, to make sure that this economic
tool is available to American businesses. No one has struggled harder
than I have to make sure that those individuals who make their living
in the industries that use the Bank are able to continue to do that. No
one has worked harder.
The last time this bill was reauthorized, I sat in the majority. My
leadership at that time was opposed to the reauthorization of the
Export-Import Bank. My colleague from Tennessee and I used a procedure
from the beginning of the previous century to discharge a clean version
of the bill, to bring it to the floor, to pass it, and, ultimately, for
it to be passed by the Senate and signed by the President. So there is
no one who appreciates more than I do the importance of this bill.
So, why am I here? I had a couple of amendments offered in the Rules
Committee. I know some of my colleagues have said: ``Frank, why didn't
you offer those amendments in the markup of the bill?'' Well, Mr.
Speaker, I have been around here long enough, and I have been in this
great life that we live long enough, to understand there are some
fundamental rules.
My ranking member and my chairman on that committee engaged in one of
the most splendid, intense, philosophical battles over reauthorizing
this bill that you will ever see. They fought hard over every
principle. They had proponents on both sides of the committee trying to
drive the bill further to the left and, simultaneously, further to the
right. That is a difficult set of issues to balance out.
You say: ``Well, Frank, why weren't you engaged?'' There is an old
country logic that goes something like this: When your neighbor's bull
jumps into your pasture, or when two of your bulls get in the same
pasture together and engage in a fight and get mad and get hot and try
to fight to the death, you don't get between them because they will
kill you. They will kill you.
My perspective was, let the committee do its will, but on the floor
of this United States House, let's offer alternatives.
You say: ``What were your amendments that were rejected that would
have made a difference?''
Amendment No. 17 simply reflected what the White House had said: Send
us a clean 10-year reauthorization.
Clean, 10 years. Straightforward, understandable, logical.
But being the practical fellow I am, I offered amendment No. 18. What
did No. 18 say? Basically, it was the most popular bill in the United
States Senate at this time to reauthorize the institution: a 10-year
reauthorization, raise the capitalization level to $175 billion, and
address the quorum requirement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman because we are hearing from a member of the committee who
supports the Bank but who opposes this rule.

Mr. LUCAS. Either amendment, I believe, would have passed the floor.
One amendment would have assured us a signature immediately. The second
amendment would have assured us, I believe, passage in the Senate. But
the forces fought themselves to exhaustion.
I came, as I had before, to appeal to this body as a whole. I was
denied that opportunity. So, yes, I am voting against the rule. I will
vote against the bill because, you see, somebody that matters greatly
on the other side of this campus said this bill will never be heard
over there, will never be heard.
I am here to make things happen, working with you. I am here working
on behalf of our constituents, working with you. That is what I tried.
Reject the rule. Force this back to the Rules Committee. Give me a
second chance. Give me a second chance. But you have to vote ``no'' on
the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the opportunity
to express my concerns.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I first want to recognize my colleague from Oklahoma and
his passion, his history on this bill, and his argument. I also want to
thank him for the bull analogy, although I am not sure how the chair of
the committee might take that.
Having said that, I do want to say to my friend from Georgia a little
bit about his comments. I find myself in agreement whenever I come down
here on much of what Mr. Woodall says in terms of the aspiration of
working more together and still keeping our unique perspectives on
things.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that he would admit that the chair of the
Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, and the ranking member--certainly, two
of the Members I respect the most, in addition to my colleague. We have
had these debates in the committee, and I think that there is an
earnest effort of both parties to do better. As you said, we can do
better.
So I would like to thank my colleague for mentioning and referring to
the instances when we did agree. I would like to remind us all that Mr.
McGovern has been very insistent on the 72-hour rule, which has been
helpful. We have done a higher percentage of structured rules to date,
and fewer closed rules to date, under his leadership than we did under
the previous Congress. Just 2 weeks ago, not that this is a baseball
game, there were three times as many Republican amendments in the
natural resources bill as there were Democratic.
Having said that, I think we can do better.
I do want to note to my colleague that I am a cosponsor of the
Adoptee Citizen Act, a great piece of legislation with great authors.
As we continue to try to do more together and better together, I think
you know I yearn to serve in a body like that, where we have legitimate
differences of opinion from our perspective, from what our constituents
expect, and there is honest respect for both sides, that we create a
work product that is probably more reflective of both. I have said that
before. We have had this discussion.
In this instance, I think we are trying to do better all the time.
For me, and I know for the chair and our staff, we want to continue to
work with the gentleman to do better.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do enjoy working with my friend from California. When
I am critical of our work product, I am critical of all 13 of us on the
Rules Committee. We are tasked with getting the job done, and when we
don't get it done, it falls on all of us.
I was critical earlier today of stuffing so many things into this
rule because I like to do things one at a time. But if we are going to
stuff all the things into this rule, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell
my colleagues that if we defeat the previous question, I will add one
more into this rule. It will be a collaborative effort, not a
Republican effort, a collaborative effort. If we defeat the previous
question, Mr. Speaker, I will add an amendment that will bring to the
floor H.R. 2207. That is the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2019,
which most of my colleagues know is the bill to prevent the medical
device tax, eliminate that tax.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment and any extraneous materials in the Record immediately prior
to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I told you this was a bipartisan piece of
legislation. It has 253 bipartisan cosponsors. It is authored by a
Democrat from Wisconsin, a great Member, Mr. Kind, and it makes a real
difference to so many Americans. I can't explain it as well as my
friend from Indiana can.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs.
Walorski), a Member who has worked

[[Page H8843]]

tirelessly to correct this legislative flaw on behalf of the American
people.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, if we defeat the
previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to include the
consideration of the repeal of the medical device tax.
The medical device tax hurts jobs and innovation, preventing the
development of cutting-edge, lifesaving technologies. That also
increases the cost of patient care for all of our constituents,
Republican and Democrat. There is not a corner on the market for
patient success and lifelong cures more than the medical device tax
elimination.
Hoosiers in my State are proud to be leaders in medical innovation,
with more than 300 medical device manufacturers in my State alone
supporting nearly 55,000 good-paying jobs. However, after this tax took
effect, the industry lost nearly 30,000 of those jobs nationwide from
2012 to 2015, according to the Commerce Department data.
Congress has temporarily suspended this job-killing tax since 2016,
and this expires in January. Here we are at a crux that we have never
faced before. We are 3 months away. Congress needs to act today, now,
not for me, for all of us on this floor.
These folks who live and die by medical devices do not declare
themselves as being Republicans, Democrats, or independents. They are
Americans in need of our help, and they need it now.
Medical devices have literally changed the way we think about
healthcare. In all of our districts, patients undergo less invasive
procedures, which leads to shorter hospital stays. New technologies
diagnose illnesses earlier, lowering the impact of care on a person's
daily life. Yet, all these notable gains will be wiped out if the
medical device tax elimination repeal is not carried through here
today. It will divert millions of dollars that could have been spent on
critical investments in research and development of cures and
therapies.

{time} 1315

There is huge bipartisan support for this bill. Unlike very few other
bills in this place, it is bipartisan because we have all recognized at
one time or another that our constituents need our help and we are
doing something to help them.
By defeating the previous question, we can do that. We can unleash
the potential of the medical device technology that could be developing
better treatments, managing chronic care, and improving the quality of
life for people in all of our districts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous
question.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I can't say it any better than my friend from Oklahoma
said it. He supports the goal of the underlying bill. He is going to
oppose this rule because his ideas were not even heard, not that his
ideas weren't put into the language, but that he was not even allowed a
chance to debate his ideas.
I will say it again: Only two Republican ideas were made in order for
consideration in this rule, and more amendments were given to
individual members of the Democratic Party than the entire Republican
Party combined. That is not the way we ought to be doing things. We
ought to have a full airing of issues and concerns.
You heard it from the gentleman from Oklahoma, vote ``no'' on the
rule. But also vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, you heard from my friend from Indiana. We have an
opportunity in a bipartisan way to solve a nationwide problem by
eliminating the medical device tax. Everybody from the far left to the
far right knows it; from the east, to the west, to the north, to the
south. We can do this together.
If we have to do this closed rule that eliminates the diversity of
ideas in this institution, then let's at least do it with the medical
device tax language included.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Add that language. If we can't
defeat the previous question, I am going to have to ask my colleagues
to defeat the rule and see if we can't come back with a process that
opens up this bill to more voices; not just from across the parties,
but from across the country.
We can do better than this. My colleagues know it, as do I.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is always a pleasure to be down here or on the Rules Committee
with my friend from Georgia. I appreciate what we agree with, and I
appreciate the passion that the gentleman brings when he disagrees with
us.
I do want to say, as we fight for these things, there was a famous
Frenchman who President Reagan used to quote, the quote was: ``Don't
let the perfect be the enemy of the good.''
So somewhere in there, in this process I think we try to find the
best product we can. I believe what we have in front of us is that
product. And I do also think and commit to this that we can always do
better.
Mr. Speaker, a vote for this rule and this bill is a vote to promote
American-made jobs, goods, and the American economy.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.
The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as
follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 695

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 2207) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 2207.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and
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. WOODALL. 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 226,
nays 198, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 615]

YEAS--226

[[Page H8844]]

Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
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--198

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Craig
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
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)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
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 (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Phillips
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
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--6

Gabbard
Omar
Schiff
Serrano
Timmons
Yoho

{time} 1348

Messrs. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma, WITTMAN, SPANO, BILIRAKIS, and Ms.
HERRERA BEUTLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. TED LIEU of California, Ms. MENG, Mr. CLEAVER, and Ms. PORTER
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 615.
Stated against:
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I voted electronically but it did not
register. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall
No. 615.
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. WOODALL. 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 228,
nays 198, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 616]

YEAS--228

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
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)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
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
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
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
Kuster (NH)
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 (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
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--198

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
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)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
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 (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Porter
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
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

[[Page H8845]]

NOT VOTING--4

Gabbard
Omar
Serrano
Timmons

{time} 1404

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.

____________________