[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 4, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3587-H3594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8580, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, 
  VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2025 AND 
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8282, ILLEGITIMATE COURT 
                           COUNTERACTION ACT

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1269 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1269

       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. 8580) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, 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 or their respective designees. 
     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 118-35, 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. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived.
       Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to H.R. 8580, 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, 
     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 his 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 H.R. 8580 for amendment, 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate.
       Sec. 5.  At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8580 
     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.
       Sec. 6.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8282) to impose 
     sanctions with respect to the International Criminal Court 
     engaged in any effort to investigate, arrest, detain, or 
     prosecute any protected person of the United States and its 
     allies. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-37 shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be

[[Page H3588]]

     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further 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 Foreign Affairs or their 
     respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the 
underlying legislation. Before I talk about the rule, I want to 
recognize our staff director, Kelly Dixon.
  I recognize the staff director of the House Rules Committee, Kelly 
Dixon Chambers.
  I first met Kelly as a freshman Member of Congress. She has been a 
mentor of mine and, most importantly, she has been a friend. This is 
before I even joined the Rules Committee. Kelly has been a vital member 
of the House of Representatives for over 25 years.
  From Congressman   Ken Calvert's office, to the House Judiciary 
Committee, to the New York delegation, to the former offices of Speaker 
Kevin McCarthy when he was whip and leader, to today where she is a 
staff director of the Rules Committee majority staff under Chairman 
Cole and Dr. Burgess, Kelly has always been a leader in the House 
during some of the most consequential decisions over the past two 
decades.
  Mr. Speaker, the House owes Kelly a debt of gratitude, and I look 
forward to working with her in the years to come.
  Now back to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1269 provides for consideration of H.R. 
8580, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act of 2025.
  This is under a structured rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, and it 
provides for one motion to recommit.
  The rule makes 47 amendments in order.
  Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8282, the 
Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour 
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective 
designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, on October 7, 2023, Hamas launched the largest mass 
killing of Jews that we have seen since the Holocaust. This horrific 
assault attacked Israel by land, sea, and air, killing over 1,200 
innocent civilians, including dozens of Americans. For perspective, 
this would be the equivalent of over 40,000 American dead and nearly 
9,000 Americans being taken hostage.
  In the aftermath of that atrocious attack, we have learned that 
families were burned alive, infants were decapitated, women were 
sexually assaulted, and other unthinkable acts of violence were 
committed.
  To date, Hamas continues to hold as many as 130 hostages. Since those 
attacks, we have seen a clear divide in the United States and around 
the globe between those who stand with our ally, Israel, and those who 
stand with Hamas.
  One of the organizations that stands with Hamas is the international 
kangaroo court, also known as the ICC. This court is anti-American, 
anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic. The United States and Israel are not 
members of the ICC, and the court has absolutely no standing and no 
jurisdiction over our Nation or the nation of Israel.
  Previously, the court has targeted American warfighters for defending 
our Nation in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. They are now 
targeting our ally and partner, Israel, and drawing a false equivalence 
and distorted moral equivalency between the leaders of Hamas and the 
democratically elected Government of Israel.
  That is why House Republicans will pass the Illegitimate Court 
Counteraction Act introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my 
good friend.
  This legislation would reimpose the Trump administration's sanctions 
against the ICC officials that investigate, arrest, detain, and 
prosecute U.S. citizens or allies, like Israel.
  The choice is clear: Do you stand with our ally, Israel, or do you 
stand with Hamas?
  Do you stand with this illegitimate court?

                              {time}  0930

  Additionally, as a Navy veteran and a member of the House 
Appropriations Committee, I am proud to introduce FY25 MILCON-VA bill, 
which was introduced by Chairman Carter.
  Under Chairman Cole's and Chairman Carter's leadership, H.R. 8580 
will fully fund veterans' healthcare programs and benefits. It provides 
for an extra $75 million above the President's budget and $30 billion 
above last year's enacted level for veterans.
  Further, this legislation also provides for robust funding for the 
Indo-Pacific region, invests billions in quality-of-life projects for 
our servicemembers and their families, and blocks the Biden 
administration from placing al-Qaida terrorists in our local 
communities.
  This bill provides for an additional $412 million over the 
President's budget for military construction so we can invest more in 
our national security.
  As we approach the 80th anniversary of D-day, this week's vote will 
be an important step in supporting our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I begin as well to take a moment to recognize Kelly 
Dixon Chambers, the staff director for the House Rules Committee 
Republicans whose last week on the Hill is this week.
  There is no doubt that she is an extraordinary, exceptional, 
incredible public servant. I said last night in the Rules Committee, 
she is a master legislative strategist. She knows everything about 
everything about rules and procedures. She spent her time here on 
Capitol Hill working to improve this institution and to uphold the 
traditions of the Rules Committee. She has also done a lot to foster an 
environment of mutual respect and camaraderie behind the scenes, which 
we all benefit from and appreciate, especially during these very 
polarizing times.
  In short, she is one of the most effective people I have ever worked 
with on Capitol Hill, and all I have to say is that I love her and I 
respect her a whole lot. All of us on this side of the aisle will 
genuinely miss her.
  I also said last night that my only problem with Kelly is that she 
isn't a Democrat, but I don't hold that against her. In fact, she has 
made me sharper and better at my job because I know she always brings 
her A-game to everything that she does.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Kelly for all that she has done for Congress and 
for this country. She has put people over politics. She cares. She has 
accomplished a whole lot up here. She should be proud of her time 
serving in the people's House. For the people here who call her a 
friend and mentor, as I know I do, we wish her all the very best as she 
steps into a new chapter in her life and her career.
  Moving on, let me get to the rule here.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be managing this rule. I am glad that I am 
allowed to speak on the floor again. As you remember, I was silenced 2 
weeks ago for simply speaking the truth.
  That is right. I was muzzled from that very rostrum for daring to 
recite facts, and I can think of at least 34 new facts that could get 
my words taken

[[Page H3589]]

down today, but I won't go there because I want to be allowed to say a 
few things without being canceled by the Republican majority for the 
high crime of merely speaking the truth.
  This rule contains two bills, both of which I think are lousy.
  First, is the House Republicans' Military Construction appropriations 
proposal for fiscal year 2025. This should be one of the least 
controversial funding bills Congress passes each year, but, this year, 
House Republicans are loading their funding bills with more culture war 
nonsense: the same attacks on abortion access, attacks on the LGBTQ+ 
community, and attacks on diversity and inclusion efforts.
  We are talking about more narrow-minded, hateful MAGA riders that 
inject partisan politics into what should be a bipartisan bill.
  This bill also holds the VA back from protecting struggling veterans 
who may pose a danger to themselves or others. It would hamper efforts 
to prevent Veterans from dying by suicide. This bill zeroes out funding 
for climate change and resilience projects, something that will 
jeopardize our national security because it means our military 
installations will not be prepared for the realities of the climate 
crisis.
  At the end of the day, this funding bill is full of poison pills that 
endanger our national security and threaten the quality of life for 
veterans, those who serve, and their families.
  Again, this should have been easy. This should have been a bipartisan 
bill where there would be very little debate or little dissension, and 
they turned it into this horrific culture war bill filled with things 
that, quite frankly, are very divisive and have no business being in 
the Military Construction appropriations bill.
  Second on the agenda is H.R. 8282, a bill that imposes sanctions on 
the good people who work for the International Criminal Court and their 
families.
  I know Members have a variety of thoughts on this measure, but, 
frankly, I think this is a bad, bad bill. The idea that the ICC is some 
evil institution is totally contrary to fact. The International 
Criminal Court is an important institution, and it is not in America's 
moral or strategic interest to attack the court for doing its job.
  The U.S. recognizes the jurisdiction and the legitimacy of the ICC 
and cooperates with the ICC in cases ranging from Sudan to Ukraine and 
Russia, to the Lord's Resistance Army led by Joseph Kony.
  Fundamentally, this bill says that human rights don't matter. In 
fact, it totally undermines the rules-based international order that 
America helped build.
  Let me be clear: I am already being challenged to explain U.S. double 
standards every time I meet with representatives of foreign 
governments. When I meet with human rights advocates from abroad, they 
are gutted, first, by the brutality and the inhumanity of the war in 
Gaza, and, second, by America's inexplicable abandonment of its 
commitment of human rights and justice for all.
  What better gift to China or Russia, our most significant 
adversaries, than for us to undermine the international rule of law and 
gut institutions of accountability that the U.S. helped create and 
worked to consolidate for more than 75 years.
  What better gift than to say: Yes, it is just fine to ignore or 
redefine human rights and international humanitarian law for reasons of 
political convenience.
  What should our reaction be? First, we should read the evidence 
contained in the ICC filing. Second, we should wait for the judges to 
actually rule on the warrant applications. We don't know what their 
decision will be. When it comes down, if we disagree with it, we can 
say so.
  What is not okay is to attack the court's existence or threaten its 
personnel and their families.
  Republicans are already doing that in New York. It is wrong there and 
it is wrong here.
  Finally, we should insist on credible, independent investigations of 
the crimes the ICC has alleged, which include, by the way, the 
unspeakable crimes committed by Hamas on October 7. Surely, I hope 
everybody here supports the ICC's effort to hold Hamas accountable.
  We should also recognize the ICC's action for what it is. It is an 
urgent attempt at prevention. The ICC is urging Israel to change course 
and to stop the carnage against Palestinian civilians. It is calling 
upon the independent Israeli judiciary to investigate these alleged 
crimes and follow the evidence, no matter where it leads, before the 
worst unimaginable criminal charges become inevitable.
  Should this bill pass, it would completely isolate us 
internationally, including and especially from our closest allies. It 
would deepen accusations of hypocrisy that have already caused a mind-
boggling level of damage to the reputation of the United States, our 
diplomacy, and the entire range of our soft power capabilities.
  I am just completely astounded by how little my Republican colleagues 
seem to even care about the massive ramifications of this bill. There 
was no hearing. There was no hearing at all. There were no witnesses, 
no markup, no nothing.
  The Republican who testified last night in the Rules Committee had no 
clue what was even in the bill. He told us he wasn't on the committee 
of jurisdiction but he is. He didn't even know what the text of the 
bill was because the text kept on changing multiple times.
  Is that how you conduct business in the people's House?
  My Republican colleagues have turned this place into a joke. They are 
making a complete and total mockery of the committee process. On top of 
it all, we have another closed rule. How pathetic.
  I mean, I get that the Republicans may not care about the 
implications of some of the things that they say or what they bring on 
the floor, but at least try to go through the motions. Let's at least 
have a hearing. Let's have witnesses. The Republicans could make 
believe they care about the facts and that they are serious about 
legislating.
  Again, it is sad that this is the process that brings this bill to 
the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, good luck hiding behind procedural 
arguments when talking about defending the ICC. This is a kangaroo 
court, and to defend it is to defend an institution that is anti-
American, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic, but we shouldn't be shocked 
that this is coming from the left and the Biden administration.
  This administration has been weak. They have been feckless. They have 
been incompetent on foreign policy from now going back to when Joe 
Biden was sworn into office.
  What are we seeing? The world is absolutely on fire.
  In his first year alone, President Joe Biden green lit the Nord 
Stream 2 pipeline to provide Russian gas to Europe while at the same 
time blocking the Keystone XL pipeline that would have actually led to 
energy exportation from this country.
  He also issued 94 executive actions on immigration which led to an 
unprecedented invasion at our southern border. The President and his 
unelected bureaucrats in the administration are also directly 
responsible for the failed withdraw of the U.S. from Afghanistan, 
giving up the Bagram Airbase before we even evacuated, which led 
directly to the death of 13 American servicemembers, it stranded 
thousands of American citizens abroad, and it brought the Taliban back 
into power, something that we were there to counter for the last 20 
years.
  Let's talk about President Biden making the decision to delist the 
Houthi rebels from the terrorist watch list. What did that do? It led 
to a crisis in the Red Sea. He also placed an indefinite pause on LNG 
exports, which benefits--I can't make this up--Russia and Iran, rather 
than helping ourselves and our allies in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.
  That is just the start of the blunders of the Biden administration on 
Foreign Affairs. He also waived the billions of dollars in sanctions on 
Iran so their energy sector could grow and they could export energy, 
which, of course, led to Iran being able to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, and 
the Houthi rebels, which has led to all the chaos in the Middle East.
  Since October 7 alone, our servicemembers in the Middle East have 
been attacked over 100 times, including the deaths of three Americans 
in Jordan.

[[Page H3590]]

  It just doesn't stop there. I just got back from a trip to Turks and 
Caicos, an official trip, a congressional delegation. There you have a 
small island nation that has roughly 60,000 citizens, and they are 
allowed to commit human rights violations on Americans, holding 
American detainees in a North Korean-style court system and legal 
system there. All it would take to bring the Americans that are 
wrongfully detained in Turks and Caicos home would be a do not travel 
order from Antony Blinken.

  Do you think Secretary Blinken has issued an order? Of course he 
hasn't.
  We have seen weakness. We have seen indecisive action from the State 
Department and that has emboldened these banana republics like Turks 
and Caicos to have draconian laws on their books that target American 
citizens.
  Biden's weakness has done nothing but embolden our adversaries. It 
has emboldened Russia. It has emboldened China. It has emboldened Iran, 
and now you are seeing it embolden banana republics that are holding 
American hostages in basically the North Korea of the Caribbean, Turks 
and Caicos.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), 
my very good friend and fellow Rules Committee member, to talk more 
about the ICC.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, before I start, I will join in a bipartisan moment of 
agreement with my friend from Massachusetts about Kelly Dixon.
  I too wish her well. I wish her all the best in her next endeavors. 
The gentleman is correct about her intellect and her commitment to the 
institution. We have debated numerous times on the floor. As a former 
staffer, chief of staff to a senator, it is not always easy to walk the 
line and intellectually engage and spar with Members of Congress, for 
those without the election certificate, but to do so with the proper 
amount of respect in going toe to toe with Members in the right way. 
Kelly has always done that.
  She does very much believe in keeping the traditions of this 
institution moving forward in the right way. I am deeply appreciative 
of that and of her service, and we will be wishing her well going 
forward and will miss her.

                              {time}  0945

  Here we are talking about the issues before us in this rule, the 
MILCON-VA funding and the International Criminal Court.
  Just a quick moment on MILCON-VA funding--I note that this 
legislation that we put forward we have done so in good faith to 
increase spending for veterans--yes, increase spending for veterans--
because it is higher than that which has been put forward by the 
President in the President's budget. It is also, in aggregate, the 
total amount of spending that we are spending on veterans when you 
factor in mandatory spending and discretionary spending, will be 
greater under our spending than it would be last year.
  Yes, we are trying to figure out how to do this in a fiscally 
responsible manner. We believe we have done that, and we have put 
forward the policy initiatives that we believe are important to 
constrain the administration to ensure that we are not advancing a 
radical agenda through the executive branch's actions.
  The President has been aggressive in disagreeing with the United 
States Supreme Court and Congress in advancing a radical agenda, 
whether it is DEI, CRT, or student loans. We believe it is our power of 
the purse in Congress to be able to constrain that.
  The thing I want to most talk about here is the International 
Criminal Court. This is an issue that really shouldn't be partisan, I 
agree. I have had numerous conversations with my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, and they have been good conversations. They 
have been healthy conversations with leadership on both sides of the 
aisle.
  At stake right now is the critically important issue of ensuring that 
we protect America's interests. That is what is at stake right now in 
the International Criminal Court. It isn't just about Israel. In fact, 
it is not even specifically about Israel.
  This would be a permanent change, a change to the law to ensure that 
if the International Criminal Court targets Americans or targets our 
allies, that we would sanction the International Criminal Court.
  Now, let's be clear. This is an unprecedented action being taken by 
the International Criminal Court, seeking arrest warrants for the 
sitting Prime Minister and Minister of Defense of Israel. Say that out 
loud. That is what is happening with the International Criminal Court.
  Neither Israel nor the United States is a party to this organization, 
yet this entity, the International Criminal Court, is trying to issue a 
warrant against the Prime Minister of Israel.
  There have been longstanding bipartisan concerns about the ICC's 
undermining of the United States' sovereignty. Since the founding in 
2002, every U.S. administration, both parties, has refused to join the 
court, fearing its politicization and misuse.
  On April 2, 2021, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said: ``We 
maintain our longstanding objection to the Court's efforts to assert 
jurisdiction over personnel of non-States Parties such as the United 
States and Israel.''
  NSC spokesperson John Kirby said, on April 30: ``We don't believe the 
ICC has any jurisdiction here.''
  Both the Biden and Trump administrations and over 330 Members of 
Congress from both parties have rejected ICC investigations of the 
United States and Israel in the past.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, talking about the Democratic 
witness: Do you believe the ICC should be able to target American 
servicemen? The answer was no.
  The fact here is if you allow this to happen, you are opening the 
door. We need to make it crystal clear to our men and women in uniform 
that we will not tolerate the ICC going after them or our allies for 
simply performing their job.
  This is not unprecedented in the sense that the ICC has tried to 
investigate U.S. servicemembers before, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania noted, but the reality here is this is pretty simple. This 
bill would sanction the ICC. Yes, it has teeth. Yes, it would cause 
some concerns and some pain for the members of the ICC. That is 
intentional.
  We want to make them think twice, and we modeled it after existing 
legislation. We used a model. This is not something new. We believe 
this is critically important. This country, the United States, should 
stand united and hold the ICC accountable.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania made a point when he got 
up that I was somehow trying to hide behind process. It is clear he 
wasn't listening to my very substantive speech in which I actually 
talked about the policy implications of what my Republican friends were 
doing.
  Since he brought up process, and I think this is an important point 
to emphasize here because we are on the Rules Committee, I want to 
point out that sometimes I call the Rules Committee, under the 
Republicans, the break the rules committee.
  Let's look at some of the rules that are being ignored today. This is 
from the official Republican Committee Report. Maybe the gentleman 
doesn't read it, but I do.
  Let me quote: This waives ``all points of order against provisions in 
H.R. 8580, as amended,'' which includes ``Clause 2 of rule XXI, which 
prohibits unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an 
appropriations bill.''
  The gentleman who just spoke routinely talks about how he is opposed 
to unauthorized appropriations and appropriations bills, yet that rule 
was waived by the Republicans.
  ``Clause 5(a) of rule XXI, which prohibits a bill or joint resolution 
carrying a tax or tariff measure from being reported by a committee not 
having jurisdiction to report tax or tariff measures.'' That was ruled 
waived.
  Here is the big one: ``Clause 12 of rule XXI, which prohibits 
consideration of a bill or joint resolution pursuant to a special order 
of business reported by the Committee on Rules that has not been 
reported by a committee.'' That is what is known, for my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, as the McGovern rule.

  When I was chairman of the Rules Committee, we actually put this in

[[Page H3591]]

place, that bills that come before the Rules Committee ought to have a 
hearing and a markup by a committee of jurisdiction. We weren't always 
perfect, but we really tried to be. We really tried to be.
  Why did they waive the McGovern rule? The reason why is because they 
short-circuited the legislative process. There were no hearings and no 
markup on the ICC bill, none, not at all, and no one can amend it, as 
well. No amendments are made in order.
  Again, what was really puzzling to me was the Republican witness who 
came before the Rules Committee couldn't even tell us what the accurate 
text of the bill that we were considering was because it had been 
changed so many times. It was astonishing to watch this in action.
  Rules and process matter because when you ignore the process, you get 
lousy bills, and nobody even knows what the implications of the ICC 
bill are.
  Again, you didn't have time for a hearing? You could have done an 
emergency hearing in the committee of jurisdiction. You could have done 
an emergency markup before it came to the Rules Committee. You bypassed 
everything and kept on changing the text of the bill.
  That is a lousy way to legislate. I will tell you, I can't wait until 
after November and my friends are no longer in charge because we can 
then demonstrate not only to my Republican friends but to the American 
people how a legislative process should work, how to get things done, 
how to be effective. This is irresponsible legislating.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  You can't make this stuff up. It is amazing. I am being gaslit in 
real time here, and so are the American people. I often say if it 
weren't for double standards, the Democrats would have no standards at 
all. Here we are, talking about process and procedure and totally 
ignoring the fact that the Democrats ran roughshod over process and 
procedure last Congress when they were in control.
  Don't believe me? Let's look at the facts. Last Congress, the 
Democratic-controlled Rules Committee considered 30 pieces of 
legislation that did not go through regular order. That includes 28 
McGovern waivers for unreported bills. You might say, oh, 28 out of 30, 
what about the other 2? Well, the other two were reported but without 
hearings.
  It is amazing and so rich, being attacked for having a bill not going 
through regular order on a few occasions when the Democrats themselves 
had it 30 separate times in the last Congress. That is quite amazing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Alford).
  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for 
yielding.
  I rise today in favor of this Military Construction, Veterans Affairs 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to share my appreciation for Kelly Dixon, 
who is leaving the Rules Committee. She is one of the first persons we 
met as freshmen. Mr. Speaker, you remember us going to the Rules 
Committee office and Kelly running us through how things operate here 
on the House floor. I had no experience in politics, and it was all new 
to me. She made the rules clear, and decorum, as well, which is such an 
important part of this institution. We wish Kelly well.
  I want to say a special thank-you to the Appropriations Committee, in 
particular, Chairman Cole and Defense Subcommittee Chair Calvert, for 
the $144 million in this bill, which is going to go to the advanced 
individual training barracks for prestigious Fort Leonard Wood in the 
southeastern part of the Fourth Congressional District of the great 
State of Missouri, which I represent.
  Fort Leonard Wood is a wonderful center of excellence, training the 
men and women who are tasked with protecting our great Nation. I was 
down there last year to visit and saw the need for new barracks on this 
great facility. It was real, Mr. Speaker.
  I also thank Secretary Wormuth of the Army for making this a priority 
in the President's budget because, together, we are working to increase 
our retention and recruitment for the armed services.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have issues with recruitment. Only 9 
percent of Americans, young people, right now have any interest in 
joining the military. At Fort Leonard Wood and other areas where we are 
going to provide military construction through this appropriations 
process, we are not building the Taj Mahal, but we are building 
barracks and privatized housing that is going to make living and 
working on these facilities not necessarily a joy but someplace where 
they can rest their heads at night and feel comfortable and safe. I 
thank the chair and subcommittee chair for that addition to this 
package.
  I want to talk now specifically about H.R. 8282, the Illegitimate 
Court Counteraction Act. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to 
provide consideration of this act.
  To be honest, I am a little disappointed. I am a little bit disgusted 
that, once again, we are having to have these discussions about what we 
stand for as a nation, in particular in protecting the Nation of 
Israel. It is unfortunate, but it is something that we must do.
  Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East, and it is under 
attack. It has been since October 7. Israel was living in peace until 
they were attacked on October 7.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, this time, the attack is coming from the 
International Criminal Court, which went as far as seeking an arrest 
warrant against Prime Minister Netanyahu for the rightful act of 
defending his country against the horrific terrorist attacks of October 
7.

  Mr. Speaker, this is an unprecedented move, and even President Biden 
called the arrest warrants ``outrageous.'' The commonsense response to 
this outrageous action by the ICC is to pass H.R. 8282.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we will see just how much common sense our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle actually have.
  H.R. 8282 would impose sanctions against ICC officials who 
investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a U.S. person or our allies, 
including Israel, giving Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli 
people the support they truly deserve.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker, as some of my colleagues across the 
aisle seem to not understand this very simple concept: We must always 
stand with our ally Israel, and we must always stand against any 
terrorist organization like Hamas. We must support Israel in their 
efforts to eradicate Hamas, which could end this war today, Mr. 
Speaker, by releasing all the remaining hostages and surrendering.
  Mr. Speaker, recently, we were in Israel visiting with President 
Herzog, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the family of Hersh Goldberg, an 
American still held hostage by the Hamas butchers in Gaza. What they 
are dealing with is a frightening scene, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1000

  Prime Minister Netanyahu says: We appreciate the help and support of 
the U.S., but let me make one thing clear--Mr. Speaker, this is what 
Prime Minister Netanyahu says--we will fight with our fingers if 
necessary to win this war.
  Mr. Speaker, war is not pretty. We stand with Israel. We will always 
stand with Israel, and that is why I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of this rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who 
commented on my last comments where I conceded that we weren't perfect 
in following the McGovern rule, but I thank him for conceding that we 
followed it the overwhelming majority of the time.
  Again, I find it really stunning that on a bill that has implications 
that my friends can't even respond to, they decided to not only forgo a 
hearing and a markup, but they kept on changing the text at the last 
minute.
  He also was critical of President Biden and his foreign policy, but I 
want

[[Page H3592]]

to correct the record on that as well. When the other guy was 
President, I will remind the gentleman, Iran didn't just attack Israeli 
troops, they attacked U.S. troops. They attacked us.
  The gentleman wants to talk about supporting our allies. His side 
held up aid for Ukraine for 9 months because their side bought into 
Kremlin propaganda. They were more interested in pleasing Vladimir 
Putin than they were in standing by our allies in Ukraine.
  It was their side, a Republican President, who went to North Korea 
and tried to get a brutal dictator to like him. He tried to kowtow to 
Kim Jong-Un. It was their side, a Republican President, who tried to 
extort our Ukrainian allies by withholding U.S. aid, and then he was 
impeached over that.
  It was his Republican candidate for President who praises Putin, 
fawns over Xi Jinping, says Viktor Orban is fantastic, and sends love 
letters to Kim Jong-Un.
  It was a Republican President, the previous guy, who stood with 
America's adversaries. Contrast that with President Joe Biden. 
President Biden rallied the world to Ukraine's defense. President Biden 
has defended our ally Israel and their airspace, and President Biden 
has rebuilt America's image on the world stage by standing up for 
democracy and human rights. I am happy to compare President Biden's 
record to the other guy who they seem so in awe of and afraid of every 
single day of the week.
  I would, again, remind my colleagues that the bill on the 
International Criminal Court had no hearing, no markup, no witnesses, 
no amendments, closed rule, nothing, and they can't even explain it. 
They couldn't even explain it in the Rules Committee last night.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania). The Chair would 
also remind Members to refrain from engaging in personalities toward 
presumptive nominees for the office of President.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for pointing 
out the importance of choosing our leaders wisely and choosing those 
who would reject tyrannical tendencies themselves or to ally themselves 
with tyrants. This reminds me that 250 years ago when the 
revolutionaries of our American soil decided to fight to escape the 
tyrannical and authoritarian rule of the king, some pushed back. They 
were concerned that the people of the beautiful experiment we call 
America would not be able to choose the right leader.
  Samuel Adams believed that virtue was the soul of democracy. He said 
these beautiful words: A moral people will elect moral leaders. A moral 
people will elect moral leaders.
  I have incredible faith in our American people. I know that they 
honor and cherish our Constitution. I know that the American people 
will honor the rule of law. Today, I will not speak of the 34 reasons 
why I know that the American people are moral people and will elect 
moral leaders.
  Today, instead, I will speak about the manner in which Americans not 
just cherish virtue, rule of law, and our Constitution, Americans also 
cherish our veterans and our military. The appropriations bill the 
Republicans have presented today does not cherish or honor the 
sacrifices our servicemembers made in battle for this country. Instead, 
it sacrifices our national security to industries and lobbyists who 
don't want us to even acknowledge climate change.
  The Republican Speaker last night actually recognized that it would 
be common sense to protect our bases from sea rise and flooding, but 
this bill strips funding for climate resilience. They would sacrifice 
our military readiness for climate denialism.
  This bill is a kitchen sink of culture wars rather than one that 
honors our servicemembers and veterans. Instead of focusing on what our 
military bases need for readiness, Republicans are attacking women's 
healthcare, promoting discrimination against LGBTQ veterans, and 
denying climate change. This appropriations bill will prevent women 
veterans from receiving reproductive healthcare wherever they may live.
  If a female veteran's health is at risk during her pregnancy, 
Republicans don't want her to get VA care in the full array that she 
may need it. If she lives in Texas, Alabama, or a State that took away 
her reproductive healthcare, she might find herself waiting in an 
emergency room parking lot until she is near death.
  I have made difficult decisions about life-threatening conditions 
during my own pregnancies. I enjoyed the right to make decisions about 
my health with the people I trust and love, my doctors, and my own 
faith in God. I want every woman to have the same right, to have access 
to healthcare if her health is at risk during pregnancy, especially if 
she is a veteran who has served our country.
  All veterans deserve our respect wherever they live. That respect is 
measured by action, actions that protect healthcare access. This bill 
does not show that respect. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Again, it is amazing that I am hearing my friends across the aisle 
complain about closed rules and going through regular order. Again, we 
are being gaslit in real time by the left.
  I remind my friends across the aisle that at this point in the 117th 
Congress--again, when Democrats were in control, this is when Chairman 
McGovern ran the Rules Committee--Democrats had made 61 percent of 
their rules closed. In this Congress, the GOP has passed 66 more 
measures out of the Rules Committee compared with the Democrats at this 
point in the 117th.
  The GOP is legislating in this Congress. We have proportionally fewer 
closed rules over a much larger pool of bills, and 33 percent of our 
closed rules were because no amendments were submitted. They were 
closed because no one even put forward amendments. In the 118th, 81 
percent of the Rules measures that have gone to a floor vote have 
garnered bipartisan support for final passage.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle like to complain 
about amendments being made in order and they like to complain about 
regular order, but facts don't lie. They had 61 percent of their bills 
with closed rules. I just had a litany of bills that did not go through 
regular order. You can't hide from the stats.
  Let's not fool ourselves. The American people don't care about arcane 
rules of procedure in the House. No one cares about this. What they do 
care about are things like foreign policy. It is amazing, like I am 
being gaslit on procedures in the House, I am being gaslit about the 
last administration's position on foreign policy.
  I am sure if you would ask people around the world if they would 
rather have President Trump or President Biden, it would be President 
Trump, and here is why: President Trump actually killed al-Baghdadi, 
and he dismantled ISIS.
  When it comes to Iran, he neutralized Soleimani. He also targeted 
proxy groups that were controlled by the Iranians in the surrounding 
area. He put the Quds Force and the Houthis on the terrorist watch 
list, actions the Biden administration has tried to reverse.
  He blocked the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which weakened Russia. He had 
the Abraham Accords.
  We had zero attacks from Russia during the period. Remember, it was 
under Obama that Russia came into the Crimea, and then Russia didn't do 
anything for 4 years. Then, magically, when the Democrats came in, 
showing weakness and vacillation in the face of aggression, then the 
Russians invaded more parts of Ukraine.
  Also, when it comes to China, it was President Trump who put tariffs 
on China and held China to account. The Biden administration has done 
very little on that front.
  The list goes on and on, but I will leave it at that for the sake of 
time.
  Talking about being gaslit, we are being gaslit on the ICC, this 
international kangaroo court. There is so much disinformation out there 
about the ICC, especially regarding their actions on Israel.
  Let me just clear some things up. One, the ICC's warrant filings are 
factually wrong; two, Israel has conducted itself consistently with 
international

[[Page H3593]]

law and its humanitarian obligations; three, the ICC does not have 
jurisdiction over Israel as the nation is not an ICC member; and, 
fourth, the ICC warrant applications for Israeli leaders threaten U.S. 
national security. Let's just get the facts out there. Those are the 
facts, and you can't hide from them.
  It is amazing how many of my friends across the aisle, beholden to 
the extreme far left, want to talk about these make-believe Israeli 
transgressions, when they wholeheartedly ignore the transgressions of 
international law by Hamas. You want to go through a list of all the 
international law that Hamas has broken? Let's do it.
  Let's start with targeting civilians; not wearing a uniform; hiding 
among civilian populations; storing weapons in places like mosques and 
schools; having their military headquarters in a hospital; using 
torture, and rape; and deprivation of food, water, and medical aid for 
their hostages. This is just a short list, but it is amazing how the 
left, controlled by radical, dangerous extremists, refused to call out 
Hamas and their violations while latching on to these false perceived 
notions that the Israelis are somehow the ones in violation of 
international law.
  I am sick and tired of the gaslighting. The American people know the 
truth, and we are going to see the results of that in a few months.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my friends across the aisle that I 
have no further speakers at this time and I am prepared to close. I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are different. I would just say to the gentleman that 
is why I am glad the ICC is actually going after Hamas and holding 
Hamas accountable. That is a good thing. I am sorry the gentleman 
doesn't agree with that.
  As far as his numbers go on the rules, that was the most roundabout, 
crazy characterization and reconfiguration of numbers to essentially 
say and justify the fact that the Republicans are so ineffective and 
incompetent in the Rules Committee. I mean, they have lost seven rules. 
That has got to be a record. Seven of their own rules--they are in 
charge--have gone down. It is amazing when you listen to the gentleman 
try to rationalize all that is so irrational about the way the 
Republicans are running this place.
  I would also say, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned now because I was 
admonished, again, for referring to the former President and mentioning 
a process that the United States Congress actually put forward. I don't 
even know what I can say anymore when it comes to the former President 
because everything is out of order. My friends on the other side of the 
aisle can say whatever they want about President Biden. They can say 
whatever they want about anything they want, and there seems to be no 
accountability. I am just referring to facts, and I get admonished. I 
don't understand this.
  In any event, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment from the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) which is germane and 
is compliant with the rules. That amendment would strike anti-trans, 
antigay, and anti-veteran provisions from the MILCON-VA appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that over 1 million American veterans 
are part of the LGBTQ+ community, including 134,000 veterans who are 
transgender. We know the Republicans have been fighting to kick trans 
people out of the military. Now it is 2024, and it is Pride Month, and 
what are House Republicans focused on? They want to deny these 
veterans, after they have selflessly defended our Nation, from 
receiving the medical care and support that they need.

                              {time}  1015

  They are spending time trying to prevent the VA from flying Pride 
flags. With all the discrimination members of the LGBTQ community have 
had to endure, Republicans in this bill protect those who discriminate 
against same-sex marriages. Of course, this is happening during Pride 
Month. The cruelty is the point, Mr. Speaker.
  My amendment would simply allow a vote in the House to strike these 
backward policy riders from this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Record along with any 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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, enough with these Republican attacks on 
the LGBTQ+ community. Enough with the bigotry. Enough with the hate. 
Enough with the MAGA extremism. We are better than this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. I continue to get gaslit up here. At the 
end of the day, facts don't care about your feelings, and numbers don't 
lie.
  I will distill this argument into two facts right now to show you the 
hypocrisy from the other side. Last Congress, the Democrats had 30 
pieces of legislation that came outside of regular order.
  At this same point in the 117th Congress compared to this Congress, 
the 118th, the Democrats had 61 percent of their bills come to the 
floor under closed rules. Again, numbers don't lie. Don't sit here and 
try to gaslight me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close. 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I say to the gentleman, again, we are talking about today, and my 
point was that we have a bill that the witnesses that came before the 
Rules Committee couldn't even accurately describe what was in the bill.
  They had no idea because it changed so many times, couldn't really 
respond to questions about what the implications of the bill would be, 
and we are simply pointing out the fact that there was not a single 
hearing in the committee of jurisdiction on the legislation, not a 
single markup, no witnesses.
  My friends bring this to the floor under a completely closed process 
so nobody can amend it. Nobody can change anything. Nobody can change a 
comma.
  That is how the Republicans are running this House of 
Representatives, and it is pathetic, quite frankly. It is not the way 
the people's House should be run, and it shows disrespect for this 
institution. They do that day in and day out.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, the contrast is very clear for the American 
people. Democrats stand up for traditional American values like 
freedom, and Republicans are going all in on authoritarianism.
  Democrats want to fight for our democracy. We believe it is worth 
fighting for and preserving. Republicans want to attack LGBTQ rights, 
women's rights, civil rights, and voting rights. Now they even want to 
attack IVF in their quest to control women's bodies. We had a 
Republican come before the Rules Committee advocating for that last 
night. It was scary, quite frankly.
  Democrats believe in science, and Republicans spent the day yesterday 
spreading conspiracy theories about COVID and attacking Dr. Fauci.
  Democrats stand for our Constitution and the rule of law. Republicans 
are falling over themselves to get in the good graces of their 
presumptive nominee, a candidate for President who brags on social 
media about how he wants a unified Reich. Who says that?
  This is a candidate I can't even tell the truth about on the House 
floor because he is being treated like a king.
  Now, we know someone was convicted of 34 felonies, but we aren't even 
allowed to say who. Republicans are spending so much time circling the 
wagons around he who must not be named that they are neglecting the job 
that the American people sent them here to do.
  This Republican Party is totally lost. They are totally disconnected 
from what this country is about, and it is a national embarrassment.
  Democrats are putting people first. It is as simple as that. 
Republicans are putting politics first, and they are running one of the 
most incompetent, ineffective sessions of Congress, maybe in American 
history, and certainly since I have been here.

[[Page H3594]]

  Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else to say. I am afraid to say 
anything more because I am afraid my words will be taken down, and I 
will be silenced because this place is becoming so controlled, we have 
to be very, very careful of every single word we say here.
  I will just conclude by saying this is an awful process. These bills 
that are being brought before us are not worthy of all this time and 
attention.
  They are poorly drafted, and the appropriations bill, which should be 
totally bipartisan, they have loaded up with all kinds of MAGA 
extremist garbage, and we know it is going nowhere. What a waste of 
time. What a waste of time.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  In closing, I don't even know where to begin, describing closed rules 
as threats to the institution, as disrespectful, as shameful.
  Again, I remind the gentleman that last Congress, they brought 30 
pieces of legislation to the floor that had not gone through committee.
  At this same time last Congress, 61 percent of their rules were 
closed rules. The gaslighting has got to stop.
  We are here today to talk about MILCON-VA and the international 
kangaroo court known as the ICC. This week when it comes to these two 
bills, Americans will see a stark difference between House Republicans 
and the dangerous far-left extremists on the other side of the aisle.
  Some are saying that the bills are partisan exercises, and they are 
full of culture war issues. It is the Republicans that are taking the 
culture war issues out of these bills, at least out of MILCON-VA.
  If you don't believe me, look at the actions of the VA. Under 
President Biden, the VA has gone far left and woke. These include 
initiatives in the VA like DEI and CRT. They just waste taxpayer-funded 
resources on these far-left culture wars that are coming from the left.
  If you don't believe me, just look at the actions of the VA. The 
Department backtracked not too long ago after removing the iconic V-J 
Day picture from Times Square.
  The iconic picture of V-J Day, for whatever reason, wasn't woke and 
had to be removed. That is quite amazing coming from the VA.
  The VA also removed from their mission statement a quote from Abraham 
Lincoln. Why? Because that quote used male pronouns. You can't make 
this stuff up.
  The Department uses a gender gingerbread person that teaches veterans 
and employees that gender is a spectrum, and it is fluid.
  How about the Department's focus on the backlog of thousands of 
veterans' claims and veterans who can't receive timely care? Maybe they 
should focus on that instead of gender-neutral gingerbread men.
  That is why House Republicans will pass FY25 MILCON-VA that will 
focus the Department's mission back to its core mission, which is 
taking care of veterans; not fighting culture war issues.
  We protect veterans' Second Amendment rights. We prohibit DEI. We 
prevent critical race theory, and we put the Hyde amendment into the 
bill.
  We are making this bill neutral and bipartisan. We are stripping out 
culture war issues that the far-left extremists have put in it.
  Lastly, let's talk about the rule before us bringing up the piece of 
legislation that will protect U.S. citizens and servicemembers and our 
allies, including Israel, and that is to make sure we are working 
against the illegitimate sham court, the kangaroo court known as the 
ICC.
  H.R. 8282 will reimpose the Trump administration sanctions against 
the ICC and demonstrate to the world that the United States supports 
our number one ally, Israel, and Israel's right of self-defense.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

 An amendment to H. Res. 1269 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 7. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     solution, the amendment specified in section 8 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution if offered by Representative Wasserman Schultz of 
     Florida or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 
     10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent.
       Sec. 8. The amendment referred to in section 7 is as 
     follows:
       ``Page 77 beginning on line 9, strike section 256.
       Page 77 beginning on line 12, strike section 257.
       Page 87 beginning on line 12, strike section 416.''.

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
on the previous question, and I urge them to vote ``yes'' on the rule. 
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________