[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2113-2122]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1330
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 1, KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE APPROVAL ACT, 
AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 16, 2015, 
                       THROUGH FEBRUARY 23, 2015

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 100 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 100

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 1) to approve 
     the Keystone XL Pipeline. 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 among and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce and the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and 
     (2) one motion to commit.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     February 16, 2015, through February 23, 2015--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
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.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about House Resolution 100, 
which provides a closed rule for consideration of S. 1, the Keystone XL 
Pipeline Approval Act. Folks might find that a little unusual to talk 
about a bill that begins with the title S. 1, but there is a new day in 
Washington, D.C., that excites me, and it is that the ``open for 
business'' sign is there on the Senate side. It is not a function of 
Republicans doing this or Democrats doing that. It is a function of the 
process working the way that it should.
  The first vote I took on the Keystone pipeline, Mr. Speaker, was back 
in 2011 when I was first elected to Congress. It passed the House by a 
wide bipartisan margin. It was never given the time of day in the 
United States Senate.
  As we come here today, we are not just talking about approval of the 
Keystone XL pipeline in S. 1. We are talking about the inclusion of 
another bill that has passed time and time again, the Better Buildings 
Act. Mr. McKinley from West Virginia has language that would promote 
energy conservation across this land, a bill that has passed time and 
time again in this House but has never been passed by the Senate.
  It is an opportunity here today, Mr. Speaker. It is an opportunity to 
do those things that the American people sent us here to do: bipartisan 
votes, commonsense legislation for the first time in a long time, Mr. 
Speaker, and what I hope will be the beginning of a long trend here in 
the U.S. House of Representatives.
  As you listened to the Clerk read, Mr. Speaker, you heard that there 
are a lot of different points in this bill. It is not just a bill for 
consideration of S. 1. It is also a bill so that when the House is not 
in session in D.C. next week, the Speaker will have the ability to call 
the House back into session to continue to conduct business because the 
business must continue to go on. I am glad the Rules Committee was able 
to include that provision as well.
  Seven years ago is when the permit process started on the Keystone XL 
pipeline, Mr. Speaker. Since seven years ago, longer than it took to 
build the Hoover Dam, we have been trying to approve a small section of 
pipeline. I say ``trying to approve'' somewhat loosely. I think if we 
had been committed to getting it done, we could have absolutely gotten 
it done. Again, it is a commonsense piece of legislation that decides 
rather than building a pipeline across Canada to carry oil to Canadian 
refineries, which will provide lots of jobs for Canadians, if our 
partner to the north is willing, we will build that pipeline through 
America to deliver that oil to American refineries to create American 
jobs.
  This is not a bill that mandates that, Mr. Speaker. The marketplace 
is going to control this construction decision. The marketplace is 
going to control where the oil is refined, and the marketplace is going 
to control whether or not the oil comes out of the ground to begin 
with.
  Too often, I think we have been treating the Keystone XL pipeline 
approval process as if it were an environmental decision. There are 
those who wish the United States would reduce its reliance on fossil 
fuels. I am one of those. I don't think there is any advantage to be 
had by putting all your eggs in one energy basket. I am in favor of an 
all-of-the-above strategy that makes sure that America's energy 
security--North America's energy security--is based on multiple--
multiple--avenues for energy production. But we do not get to decide in 
this Chamber whether or not the Canadians bring oil out of the ground. 
We only get to decide whether or not, once that oil comes out of the 
ground, it is moved with U.S. jobs and U.S. construction to U.S. 
refineries, or whether or not those jobs go elsewhere.
  Mr. Speaker, time and time again folks come to the floor and they 
say:

[[Page 2114]]

Where are the jobs? Where is the jobs legislation? I am thrilled to be 
carrying this rule for the Rules Committee today, Mr. Speaker, because 
this is one of those jobs bills--bipartisan, common sense. And if we 
pass it here in the House today, Mr. Speaker, headed to the President's 
desk, that signature will change the lives of those hardworking 
Americans looking for jobs today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, you are not permitted to sing in the House of 
Representatives, and I shall not do that; but I will take this 
opportunity to do as my colleagues in the Rules Committee did 
yesterday, a little bit in advance of my friend's birthday. Today is 
the birthday of my friend, Mr. Woodall. And as one who has had many 
more birthdays than he, I hope he has as many birthdays as me and many, 
many more. Happy birthday to you, Rob.
  As my friends are already aware, the President has already said that 
he is going to veto this measure. We introduced last night the 
statement of the administration with reference thereto. That means that 
the likelihood that this bill will become law is highly improbable at 
best. I wish I was standing here under different circumstances. I wish 
that the House were about to vote on something it knows that the 
President will sign into law. I wish we were working on something that 
would actually help our economic recovery instead of hamstringing it.
  I listened to my friend very attentively when he pointed out that the 
marketplace will dictate three different circumstances. One that he did 
not allude to that I will is that the marketplace will dictate where 
the oil, once refined if the Keystone pipeline is approved, the 
marketplace will dictate out there in that neverland where we don't 
participate, where the oil will go. Therefore, I want to make it very 
clear that I do not believe that it means that there will be cheaper 
prices in the United States of America.
  I am standing here because House leadership would rather pass purely 
symbolic measures than work with the President. And I recognize that, 
as my friend has pointed out, that a long time has passed with 
reference to this measure. I did a little added research to determine 
what would Enbridge and the other companies up in Canada do in case 
there was no Keystone pipeline. In addition to rail, they also have 
plans to send oil east and west and plans to send it north. And, I 
might add, for all that same period of time, the resistance inside 
Canada, based on a number of circumstances having to do with the Beluga 
whale, all of the way back to farmers, having to do with 
environmentalists, the same as in our country, the same arguments, 
whether East, West, or North in Canada, have been going on while our 
debate has been going on here with reference to the Keystone pipeline.
  The 113th Congress is going to be remembered, and I believe everyone 
now understands, as the least productive Congress ever. That is the one 
that we just came out of. However, it seems that the current Congress 
is going to take its best shot at accomplishing even less if we stay on 
the course that we are on. Virtually every bill that has come before 
the Rules Committee the House already passed in the 113th Congress. 
Most have no more hope of becoming law now than the last time around. 
We have yet to see one really new idea from the Republican leadership 
of this body, which has shown zero interest in actually doing its job, 
in my opinion.
  How many more times are we going to have to vote to repeal so-called 
ObamaCare, a program that now unquestionably is improving the lives of 
some hardworking Americans. Instead, we are voting on bills handpicked 
for their ability to demonstrate the Republicans' message of the week, 
regardless of chance of enactment, regardless of whether it is a good 
idea, regardless of whether it is something that will help everyday 
Americans. And because these bills are handpicked for specific 
purposes, most have come to the floor under a closed rule, which means 
that Members cannot change the measure in any way, not even to make it 
better and not even with bipartisan solutions.
  A good example is so far this body has voted on 15 rules during this 
114th Congress, of which 8 of those 15 have been closed. The closed 
rules we will pass this week will be numbers 9, 10, and 11. Listen, my 
friends, on this same measure last week and before, the United States 
Senate, operating under regular order that is now majority-led by 
Republicans, considered on this very same measure 18 amendments, six 
that were approved, and some of them that were offered were bipartisan.
  Among the reasons I believe that the Senate majority leader 
determined that he would operate differently than the previous majority 
leader is so as to give his membership, smaller than ours, of course, 
an opportunity to participate in the process. All the more reason, I 
believe, that we should have open rules. We have new Members, too, as 
do they. We have Members that have ideas that may be bipartisan with 
reference to support and opposition to the Keystone pipeline. But no, 
we continue to operate under closed rules.
  Do you know how many rules were closed at this same point in the last 
Congress? The most closed rules ever, six. The gavel might as well be a 
brick wall.
  Furthermore, much of the legislation this Congress has voted on has 
evaded regular order, escaping the review, hearings, and markups that 
ensure appropriate deliberation and consideration. Those of us on the 
Rules Committee have a wonderful opportunity. We are becoming sort of 
like the place of first resort for legislation. It isn't coming from 
hearings. The American public doesn't get an opportunity to see the 
various committees. It just comes up to the Rules Committee and we 
massage it back and forth about what our views are, but it does not 
come under regular order.

                              {time}  1345

  Just like the original version of this bill, the House is considering 
the Senate version of this bill without a hearing or a markup.
  These are not just academic procedural disagreements. It matters 
because Members are not able to represent their constituents. It 
matters because good ideas are being deliberately kept hidden.
  I have been here a long time. I have seen some pretty great 
Congresses under Republican and Democratic control, and I have seen 
some pretty lousy ones.
  But the last few years, this body has been like a hamster on a wheel, 
spinning and spinning, but never getting anywhere. You don't have to 
look farther than a couple of amendments the Senate made to this bill 
to see my friends spinning their wheels.
  Climate change is real. Because a few Senators decided to get cute in 
parsing a few words, it is in the bill. We are going to vote on it. And 
then what?
  Just yesterday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the 
United States Department of Agriculture is making more than $280 
million available for rural agricultural producers and small business 
owners to apply for resources to purchase and install renewable energy 
systems or make energy efficiency improvements.
  Once more, those funds were made available in the 2014 farm bill, 
which shows what Congress can accomplish when we work together. I might 
add, because farmers in this country have experienced a 37 percent 
reduction--and I, along with others, represent many of those rural 
areas--I am delighted that we were able to do that in the farm bill, 
and I am pleased that Secretary Vilsack made his announcement.
  The Senate also included an amendment that finds that Congress 
should--as opposed to shall--require oil companies to pay an excise tax 
to fund oil spill cleanups.
  While I appreciate this expression, the amendment effectively does 
nothing to mandate contributions to the oil liability trust fund. I 
would invite my colleagues on the other side to explain that. Tell us 
why it is that these oil companies should not be required to

[[Page 2115]]

contribute in a mandatory manner to the oil liability trust fund. 
Instead, what is happening is we create the illusion that oil companies 
will actually be accountable in the event of a spill.
  Alternatively, simply closing the tax loophole that allows oil and 
gas companies to deduct the cost of cleaning up oil spills would 
discourage oil spills and save hardworking American taxpayers an 
average of $1.3 billion per year.
  The American people were led to believe that changing control of the 
Senate would lead to an end of this gridlock. But sadly, this has not 
been the case.
  My friends are not going to be able to, like the hamster, spin their 
wheels continuously. Even the hamster gets tired. And sooner or later, 
when that hamster gets tired of the nonsense of spinning going nowhere, 
he either gets off or he falls off.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to thank my friend for his well wishes and to tell him I am sympathetic 
to the hamster wheel scenario that he describes.
  I don't particularly enjoy these opening weeks of a new Congress, Mr. 
Speaker, because committees haven't gotten organized, legislation 
hasn't started to flow, and it puts the committee in the very 
unfortunate situation of having to act as the legislator, as the 
authorizer, to begin moving pieces of legislation to the floor.
  That is unfortunate. But that is not the situation we are talking 
about today, Mr. Speaker. What we are talking about today is a bill 
that not only passed the floor of the House but went to the Senate, a 
bill that not just went to the Senate but went through that wonderful 
open debate process that my friend from Florida described and has now 
come back to us today.
  Four years we have been trying to move this bill forward, Mr. 
Speaker. It is a closed rule here today so that we can act on the same 
legislation that the Senate has passed, so we can send this bill to the 
President's desk, so we can get off the hamster wheel of futility that 
my friend from Florida describes.
  I am optimistic, Mr. Speaker. But it doesn't happen by itself. It 
happens with years and years of work.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), whose advocacy and leadership have made 
having this bill on the floor today possible.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank my friends on the other side as well on the Rules Committee. I 
have been before them twice now on this topic and have enjoyed it 
immensely.
  I might say as a word of encouragement with regard to the hamster 
wheel, because I share the same concerns, but I am also encouraged by 
the fact that we are actually passing the Senate bill today. As many 
times as we have tried to pass this, we have never been able to get it 
to the President's desk. That will happen soon. That is progress, and I 
think we ought to celebrate the progress of that.
  With regard to being the least productive Congress, veto threats 
before voting on important things sort of leads to gridlock, I suppose. 
But I don't think that should stop us from doing our job and forwarding 
the ideas that our constituents have asked for. My constituents want 
the Keystone XL pipeline built.
  What we are doing today, as was teed up by the gentleman from 
Georgia, is, of course, talking about a Senate bill. We passed H.R. 3 
when I introduced it the first week in the House, a closed rule, as the 
gentleman from Florida said, a simple bill. We have passed similar 
bills in previous Congresses, well vetted. And my colleague from North 
Dakota, Senator Hoeven, who is really the originator of this whole 
concept, introduced S. 1.
  The other reason I think we should be encouraged is not only did the 
Senate have an open process, they voted on 47--at least 47--amendments. 
That is more than three times as many amendments on S. 1 as the Senate 
voted on in all of the bills last year. That is progress. That is not 
hamsters on the wheel.
  I want to take a few minutes to describe the amendments that came 
over from the Senate and why I suggest to leadership--and I am pleased 
leadership accepted--that we just simply accept the Senate amendments 
and move this forward rather than going to conference, although I think 
that would have been a good exercise for a lot of us as well.
  But there were a couple of amendments introduced that deal with 
energy efficiency programs, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, 
dealing with federally leased and owned property, as well as schools. 
It sets up programs and processes and gives authority to the Department 
of Energy to sort of coordinate energy efficiency issues in programs 
and projects, which I think is a noble goal.
  There is that sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not 
a hoax. Now, we can throw that out as sort of meaningless. But the 
reality is that a statement like that passed 98-1 by the Senate is a 
pretty strong statement. I think the President ought to view that as 
currency--as currency. He argues that Keystone, because oil sands are 
somehow supposed to emit more greenhouse gas emissions than other 
production--I am here to tell you it is not true, and I will point out 
the very specific facts on that.
  But in the spirit of compromise, he has this statement that I think 
provides currency for him to go to Paris next December and say: This is 
the sense of the Congress of the United States. I hope he views it as a 
positive.
  Senator Mikulski has that amendment--which the gentleman from Florida 
spoke to--the sense of the Senate that all forms of unrefined and 
unprocessed petroleum should be subject to the nominal per-barrel 
excise tax associated with the spill fund.
  While it says it is the sense of the Senate and it isn't put into 
law, I think it is important to note that we are talking about a tax, 
an excise tax that is placed on domestic crude, for sure, not placed 
on--if you can imagine this now--bitumen. Bitumen is the product that 
comes from the oil sands, and because bitumen is not in the Tax Code, 
it is not subject to the excise tax. That should be corrected. We 
should do that in the proper order, probably through the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  That said, it is important to note that TransCanada is 100 percent 
responsible for spills and cleaning them up. I sited the first Keystone 
pipeline through the State of North Dakota, 600 landowners' land. They 
had some issues in the early going at one of the pumping stations. They 
did clean it up. It didn't contaminate water or the surrounding area. 
All of the tools worked properly.
  My point is that they are responsible, and that is as per each 
State's law. This line will be permitted in each State, and they have 
to be responsible for cleanup.
  Another one, Senator Cornyn had an amendment: Land or interest in 
land for the pipeline may only be acquired through constitutionally 
appropriate means. That only makes sense. Maybe it doesn't need to be 
stated, but it is important to state, similar to the Barrasso amendment 
that clarifies that treaties with Indian tribes must remain in effect. 
That should be obvious as well, but it doesn't help to restate those 
important points.
  I think that these amendments are important amendments, they are good 
amendments, and they help broaden the appeal of the bill.
  I want to take this map down and I want to speak to just a few of the 
merits of the Keystone pipeline bill because I know them very well, the 
extraordinary benefits of Keystone XL.
  Employment opportunities--Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. State 
Department, 42,000 jobs will be supported by the construction. I can 
assure you, having been on the construction site of the original 
Keystone bill, it is true. These are real jobs. These are good jobs. 
Some people refer to them as temporary jobs. Referring to a pipeline 
project as temporary is like referring to a wind farm as only temporary 
construction.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page 2116]]


  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of the gentleman 
from Georgia. Thank you.
  But all construction jobs are temporary until the construction is 
done and you move on to the next project. There are thousands of miles 
of pipeline under the ground in the United States. The steel workers, 
the truck drivers, the backhoe operators, the welders, and the local 
hotels and restaurants and retailers benefit tremendously. This is the 
make-or-break in many cases for some of these smaller businesses that 
benefit from the construction of this dynamic economy.
  Energy security--we can't overstate energy security. We are talking 
about displacing Venezuelan oil. We are talking about displacing Middle 
East oil. In fact, the 830,000 barrels per day that will run through 
the Keystone pipeline into U.S. refineries is equal to about 50 percent 
of what we import from the Middle East. That is security.
  When we talk about energy independence, that is one thing. Security 
means that we have our security in our own hands, and we are not 
subject to bad guys from other parts of the world; that, in fact, we 
are part of the security solution. And it relates directly to national 
security, I might add.
  Enhanced safety--I was a pipeline regulator for years. There is no 
safer way to move crude oil than by a pipeline. It is the most 
efficient and it is the safest by far.
  We have seen some of the things that happened when we cluttered our 
highways. In fact, the Department of Transportation in North Dakota 
anticipates the saving of three to six fatalities on the roads in North 
Dakota if this pipeline is built because, remember, it is not all 
Canadian oil sands. About a quarter of this capacity is reserved for 
Bakken crude oil as well. That removes a lot of trucks from our roads. 
That is much safer for the traveling public.
  Trains--another issue we have. We have a lot of trains. This would 
represent 10 trains a week that could be hauling food to hungry people 
rather than oil to the marketplace.
  Environmental protection--we hear a lot about the environment and the 
issues pertaining to it, and rightfully so. The good news is that after 
6\1/2\ years of study, this is the most environmentally studied 
pipeline and the most sophisticated and highest-tech pipeline in the 
history of the world.
  In fact, moving oil by rail actually emits 1.8 times more 
CO2 into the air than moving it by pipeline. Moving it by 
truck emits 2.9 times more CO2 than does moving it by 
pipeline. Moving it by barge to China, where it will be refined with 
far lower environmental standards than the United States, that is 
priceless.
  Exchange with Canada--I don't think we should understate the 
importance of our relationship. Our number one trading partner, $2 
billion a day of goods and services travels between our two countries--
our top trading partner and best friend, Canada.
  If we were doing this to Canadians and to Canadian companies, or if 
they were doing this to us, I can't imagine how we would respond. I 
have worked closely with the Embassy. I have worked closely with the 
new Premier, Premier Jim Prentice, from Alberta, who, by the way, just 
won the election this last fall on the pro-environmental stewardship 
platform.
  Exchange with Canada is so important. We need to restore and care for 
that important relationship. I would rather enhance that relationship, 
quite frankly--and it gets right back to this energy security issue--
than be fighting over oil or fighting to protect the transportation of 
oil in other places.

                              {time}  1400

  At the end of the day, with everything else that has gone on and with 
these other important issues, to me, the final thing is this, and it is 
what I would say to the President, Mr. Speaker:
  You have asked for bipartisan bills. You have asked for us to work 
together. Here we have a bipartisan, bicameral solution, one that the 
American public supports in a big way, one that would create jobs, one 
that would lift up the middle class, Mr. President.
  I would just beg, Mr. Speaker, that the President would reconsider 
his veto threat on this important bipartisan jobs bill and sign it when 
it goes to his desk so that we can get people back to work, can become 
less dependent on foreign sources of oil from across the sea, and can 
become more interdependent with our neighbors in Canada.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to tell both of 
us the remaining amount of time on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 18 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Here we are, only 17 days before the Republican Homeland Security 
shutdown and with just 6 legislative days left until the Department of 
Homeland Security shuts down on February 28, closing down many of the 
crucial Department of Homeland Security operations that have kept our 
country safe from terrorist attacks.
  If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment 
to the rule to bring up a clean version of the Department of Homeland 
Security funding bill. With such serious consequences, it is time to 
put politics aside in order to strengthen our homeland and protect 
American families.
  To discuss our proposal, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), my good friend, the ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge this House to 
immediately take up and pass a clean funding bill for the Department of 
Homeland Security. By defeating the previous question on the pending 
rule, we can immediately make in order a clean Homeland Security bill 
and stop the theatrics over the President's use of executive orders.
  Madam Speaker, as of today, we are 134 days into what should have 
been the start of this fiscal year. The situation this House has caused 
is completely unacceptable. We simply cannot wait one more day to do 
the right thing, the responsible thing, and fund these critical 
agencies tasked with protecting this Nation.
  As the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee, I was 
involved in the bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on the omnibus 
spending bill that passed the House and the Senate and was signed by 
the President last December. That package could have contained all 12 
annual spending bills because all 12 were negotiated in conference, and 
every one of them was ready to go.
  An unfortunate decision was made by the leadership of this body to 
omit the Homeland Security bill, not because there were outstanding 
issues or continued disputes. That bill, negotiated by my good friend 
from North Carolina (Mr. Price), was stripped from the omnibus because 
some in this body were upset by the President's executive order on 
immigration. They even admitted the President's actions had little to 
do with the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Yet that was the 
choice that was made on how to proceed, so the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill was forced to operate under a continuing resolution 
instead of having a full-year bill. Ironically, it meant Customs and 
Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement--two of the 
agencies tasked with defending our borders and enforcing our 
immigration laws--had to do without the nearly $1 billion increase they 
would have gotten under the full-year bill.
  Delaying the full-year bill, my colleagues: limits the Department's 
ability to advance the Secretary's Unity of Effort initiative, designed 
to improve coordination in our security missions; limits the ability of 
the Secretary to move ahead with the Southern Border and Approaches 
Campaign; creates uncertainty regarding ICE's capacity to detain and 
deport dangerous criminals; complicates the Department's ability

[[Page 2117]]

to deal with another influx of unaccompanied children at our border 
stations; delays the implementation of the new security upgrades at the 
White House and of the hiring increases of the U.S. Secret Service; and 
delays terrorism preparedness and response grants for State and local 
public safety personnel.
  I understand that many of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle feel quite strongly about the President's use of executive orders 
on immigration policy, but I am compelled to remind those colleagues 
that they have every tool at their disposal to pass legislation 
changing the President's proposal.
  This stunt, my friends, has gone on too long. It is time to admit 
these immigration policy decisions have little to nothing to do with 
the appropriations process. The Homeland Security bill should never 
have been held hostage in this fight.
  Madam Speaker, just this week, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh 
Johnson issued a sobering statement about the consequences of operating 
under a continuing resolution. Quite simply, ``Border security is not 
free.''
  I couldn't agree more.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to enter Secretary Johnson's statement in 
the Record.

     [Department of Homeland Security Press Release, Feb. 10, 2015]

  Statement by Secretary Jeh C. Johnson on the Consequences to Border 
               Security Without a DHS Appropriations Bill

       I continue to stress the need for a DHS appropriations bill 
     for FY 2015, unburdened by politically charged amendments 
     that attempt to defund our executive actions on immigration 
     reform. The President has made plain that he will veto a bill 
     that includes such language.
       At present, the Department of Homeland Security is 
     operating on a continuing resolution that expires on February 
     27. As long as this Department is funded by a continuing 
     resolution, there are a whole series of activities vital to 
     homeland security and public safety that cannot be 
     undertaken. The public must be aware of the real impacts to 
     homeland security as long as DHS is funded by a continuing 
     resolution, or, still worse, if Congress were to permit our 
     funding to lapse altogether and the Department of Homeland 
     Security goes into government shutdown.
       Last week I issued a statement noting the impact on DHS's 
     grant-making activity to states, local and tribal governments 
     as long as we are on a CR. Basically, we are prevented from 
     funding all new non-disaster assistance grants.
       The public must also be aware of the impact on our ability 
     to secure the borders as long as we operate on a CR. As part 
     of our executive actions to reform the immigration system, 
     the President and I have emphasized increased border 
     security. Added border security is also a key component of 
     the President's FY 2015 and FY 2016 budget submissions to 
     Congress. But, as long as this Department is on a CR, and not 
     a full-year appropriations bill, our ability to strengthen 
     border security, to include maintaining the resources we put 
     in place to respond to the surge in illegal migration into 
     south Texas last summer, is constrained.
       Here are some concrete examples of things we need to do, 
     but cannot, without a full-year DHS appropriations bill for 
     FY 2015:
       Important investments in border security technology cannot 
     be initiated, including additional resources to upgrade 
     obsolete remote video surveillance systems and mobile video 
     surveillance systems in the Rio Grande Valley;
       Investments to increase our ability to analyze geospatial 
     intelligence cannot be made. This is a capability critical to 
     enhancing situational awareness of illegal border crossings 
     and prioritizing frontline personnel and capability 
     deployments;
       Non-intrusive inspection technology at ports of entry 
     cannot be enhanced. This technology reduces inspection times 
     while facilitating trade and travel, and is necessary to 
     detect illegal goods and materials, such as potential nuclear 
     and radiological threats;
       Critical enhancements to the CBP National Targeting 
     Center's operational and analytical systems cannot be made. 
     These support our daily operations against transnational 
     criminal organizations by identifying terrorist and criminal 
     threats attempting to cross our borders via land, air and 
     sea; and
       More aggressive investigations by ICE of transnational 
     criminal organizations responsible for human smuggling and 
     trafficking, narcotics smuggling, and cybercrime involving 
     child exploitation and intellectual property rights 
     violations.
       Border security is not free. The men and women of DHS need 
     a partner in Congress to fund their efforts. Time is running 
     out. I urge Congress to act responsibly and pass a clean 
     appropriations bill for this Department.
       For more information, visit www.dhs.gov.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The time of the 
gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentlewoman another 30 seconds.
  Mrs. LOWEY. If my colleagues are finally serious about these programs 
and priorities, I urge them to join with me today. Defeat the previous 
question so that my colleague, Mr. Hastings, can offer an amendment to 
provide a clean, full-year appropriations bill for the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I was just reading an article from the AP, which is doing a fact 
check on whether or not a conversation about the Department of Homeland 
Security is a fair and honest conversation. They say, in reality, most 
people will see little change if the Department's flow is halted, and 
some of the warnings of doom are as exaggerated as they are striking. 
They go on to list word after word of folks announcing those warnings.
  What is striking to me, Madam Speaker, is that, if we had the same 
open process going on in the Senate right now that the gentleman from 
Florida described--the great process that brought S. 1 to the floor--we 
would be bringing the Department of Homeland Security bill to the floor 
of the Senate as well; but, as you know, the Senate minority leader 
today is filibustering any effort to even bring this conversation to 
the floor, going back to the hamster wheel my friend from Florida 
described earlier.
  How often do we hear that? How often do we hear about the procedural 
stunts that get in the way of doing the business that every single one 
of us knows our constituents sent us here to do?
  This bill, though, is one about which we can be proud. This bill, 
though, is one that gets to the heart of what our constituents have 
asked us to do. This bill, though, has been done right from the start 
in a bipartisan way, in an open way, and it can make a difference for 
people tomorrow if we pass it on the floor of the House today and send 
it on to the President.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, my colleague just said to me, as my 
friend was looking at the Associated Press' fact check, that it would 
seem that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security would 
know a little bit more about what he is doing than would a reporter. I 
would hope that that is the case.
  I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), my classmate and good friend.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to 
defeat the previous question on the rule, to amend it, and to make in 
order the House consideration of the clean, bipartisan Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, negotiated in good 
faith last November.
  Today is February 11, 134 days into fiscal year 2015. With only 17 
days remaining until the current CR expires, the House is scheduled to 
be in session only 6 more days. Yet this Congress is no closer than it 
was last December to carrying out its basic responsibility to 
appropriately fund the Department of Homeland Security, whose primary 
mission is to protect us from terrorist attacks.
  Secretary Johnson has warned us over and over again that the 
Republican leadership's refusal to allow a vote on the clean, 
bipartisan funding bill is threatening the national security of our 
country. He tells us that, without a full-year budget, he is unable to 
move forward on key homeland security priorities, including new 
investments in border security technology; more aggressive 
investigations by ICE, related to drug smuggling, human smuggling, and 
trafficking; preparedness for responding to surges in illegal 
migration; security upgrades at the White House complex; and grants for 
State and local terrorism prevention and response capabilities; and the 
list goes on.

[[Page 2118]]

  I am truly perplexed as to what it will take to convince the 
Republican leadership to do the right thing. Surely, before taking 
appropriate action, we don't need to experience attacks like those in 
Paris.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe the President 
has overreached, the answer is not to jeopardize our national security 
by delaying the 2015 funding for Homeland Security. If Republicans wish 
to circumscribe the President's discretion on immigration policy, the 
Constitution provides a clear path of action that runs through the 
authorizing committees, not through an appropriations bill.
  Last week, the Senate definitively demonstrated three times that 
there are insufficient votes to bring up the DHS funding bill with the 
House-passed poison pill riders. Even if the Senate were to take up the 
bill, it would be vulnerable to a budget point of order because the 
poison pill riders have been scored by the Congressional Budget Office 
as having a net cost of $7.5 billion.
  Republicans control majorities in both the House and the Senate, and 
they control the agenda. By allowing a vote on the clean, full-year, 
bipartisan DHS funding bill, the leadership today has the opportunity 
to make clear that the Nation's security takes priority over unrelated 
policy debates over immigration enforcement strategy. This bill 
addresses the most pressing needs of the Department of Homeland 
Security's to protect our country from harm. It would pass both Houses 
and would be signed by the President today, and we should send it to 
him.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question to make in order 
the consideration of a clean Homeland Security funding bill.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to take the 
gentleman from Florida's advice and yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Harris), an expert on the appropriations process.
  Mr. HARRIS. I want to thank the floor leader for yielding the time.
  Madam Speaker, there is no amendment necessary to this rule. Three 
weeks ago, we passed a fully funded Department of Homeland Security. 
Except for the President's illegal actions, the entire rest of the 
Department is funded: TSA, the Coast Guard; all these critical things.
  Let's review how Congress really works. The House takes an action--we 
did 3 weeks ago--and then the Senate is supposed to take an action. 
What action did they take? Harry Reid and the Democrats have blocked 
three efforts to even debate the bill. They know if they didn't take 
that action, the Senate could debate the bill and they could strike 
those amendments. The Democrats are free to strike the amendments that 
we put on the bill that limit the President's illegal actions with 
regards to amnesty. They know they can.
  Madam Speaker, let's be honest. The last time the President shut down 
the government, 87 percent of DHS was fully funded. TSA was there. The 
Coast Guard was on the job. Yeah, there were some administrators who 
didn't go to work for a few days, but let me tell you, after the 
unemployment problem we have had in this country, there are a lot of 
people outside the Federal Government who don't go to work for a lot 
more days. That is not what the American people expect from us.
  The fact is that this bill is sitting over in the Senate. The 
President said 22 times he didn't have the authority to do what he did 
on amnesty. All we did is just made it quite clear the House position 
is he doesn't have the authority.
  So, we are not going to spend the money. We take article I seriously. 
We have the authority over spending, and if we think the President is 
taking an illegal action, we have the authority to withhold that 
funding--and that is what we did, fund the entire Department except for 
that one illegal activity the President is doing in violation of 
article I of the Constitution. It gives us the authority over the law.
  The President said he can't rewrite the law 22 times--and he did. We 
are just going to keep him to his word. He can't rewrite the law.
  The previous speaker said you can't do authorizations on 
appropriations. That is nonsense. We do it all the time. We can correct 
the President's mistake in the bill. We did. That is the bottom line.
  The Democrat leadership in the Senate has blocked even debate on the 
bill. What kind of country are we when one party, the party that is 
really holding this bill hostage in the Senate--not the Republicans; it 
is the Democrats--refuses to even debate the bill? I am shocked.
  Americans expect the Senate to debate. That is what we are asking 
them to do. That is what they are not doing. I don't understand that. 
Why don't they want the Homeland Security bill to be funded? I don't 
get it.
  Madam Speaker, I will close by saying we just need to move the motion 
on the previous question, pass the rule, and build the Keystone 
pipeline.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I would also take the opportunity to 
encourage the previous speaker to read Jefferson's Manual because some 
of the things he talked about on rules are not, at least, my 
understanding. So I accept his expertise on certain matters, but his 
ideas about what we can do in the minority strike me as strange.
  Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).
  Mr. VEASEY. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the rule. I am rising today 
against the rule. And although I believe that a pipeline is absolutely 
the most safest and environmentally conscious way that we can transport 
natural resources through North America--and natural resources, for 
that matter, that are going to be developed. It doesn't matter what the 
carrier ultimately is; these are resources that will be developed. But 
the underlying rule, much like the prior rules we have seen on any of 
the Keystone pipeline votes, does not allow for Member debate. It 
doesn't. It doesn't allow for Member debate, and that is not how we can 
best move forward. Only by having an open discussion can this body 
fully engage in creating sound public policy.
  I want to give you an example of what I am talking about. I offered 
an amendment in the Rules Committee which said that if the Keystone 
pipeline is built, we would maximize the amount of American jobs that 
are created or sustained in this process.
  My amendment would ensure that the iron, steel, and manufactured 
goods made in the construction of the Keystone pipeline and facilities 
are made here in America. If we are going to build the pipeline in 
America, let's make the materials in America. That will create more 
jobs. That will give people more opportunity.
  There has been much discussion about how we have lost so many 
manufacturing jobs in this country, about how we have lost ground in 
that area, about how people can't take care of their families because 
these opportunities are no longer here. If we are going to build this 
pipeline, let's give people the opportunity to go back to work, roll up 
their sleeves, and let's build these in America. There is no reason to 
have materials made in China to build this pipeline.
  Therefore, I believe that if Republicans want to follow a jobs-
focused agenda, the amendment that I am offering will make sure that we 
keep Americans working and not workers in China.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say to the gentleman from Texas, my heart sits where his heart 
sits--with American workers and American products. We build the best 
products in the world. There is absolutely no reason not to purchase 
the best products in the world to build something particularly as 
important as our pipeline.
  The box we find ourselves in is that, candidly, some of us--in fact, 
I dare

[[Page 2119]]

say all of us--are a little surprised the Senate was even able to move 
through this bill. I have not seen the Senate move like it has moved in 
this open process, in this expedient process. In the entire 4 years I 
have served in this institution, I have never seen it happen before.
  It is a good bill. I don't take issue with the work the Senate did. 
It looks substantially similar to what we passed here in the House. We 
may never get a chance to send this bill to the desk.
  Again, we are just trying to debate a small part of the 
appropriations process and the Senate right now can't even move into 
debate because of filibusters in the Senate.
  So I say to my friend from Texas, I am absolutely sympathetic to his 
amendment. I would like to have an opportunity to debate more 
amendments on the floor of this House.
  I think back to my early days here 4 years ago. We had a 3\1/2\-day 
what I call festival of democracy. We came down here and worked night 
and day on H.R. 1 until every Member had a chance to be heard. That is 
the way it ought to be done. And I regret that in this situation we did 
not have a chance to make the gentleman's amendment in order because it 
was a good amendment and it would absolutely be worthy of debate and 
consideration here on the floor of the House.
  Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) 
has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall) has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  I would also advise my friend from Georgia that I have no further 
speakers. I don't know whether my friend from Georgia does or not.
  Mr. WOODALL. I also have no further speakers.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I earlier asked several questions. I believe Mr. Cramer addressed one 
of them. I have yet another that I did not ask, and I am not asking him 
to respond.
  I might add, I think those of us here in the body--and I said this to 
him when he was in the Rules Committee--I do believe Mr. Cramer from 
North Dakota really does have a comprehensive understanding of this 
matter.
  While I disagreed with him about many matters, I do believe that he 
points out something that we need to pay attention to, in that there 
are already, without Keystone, a lot of pipelines in the United States 
of America, and in the period of time of this recent debate, there have 
been a lot of pipelines that have had spills and have caused major 
damage. Without getting into them, three of them have really been 
substantial. Shutoff valves become important.
  We haven't discussed many of the things regarding the technology that 
has improved over time, but I keep hearing my colleagues talk about 
this being a jobs measure. Indisputably, if there were to be a pipeline 
built, there would be jobs.
  I agree with my friends on the other side that most, if not all, 
construction jobs are temporary jobs, and there are those in labor 
unions who are very supportive of this matter for the reason that it 
would create jobs.
  But I have in mind something that many of us have advocated for 
years. The greatest reminder occurred the night before last right here 
close to us, in Maryland, when a piece of concrete from a big, old 
bridge fell off and, fortunately, when I saw the lady on television, 
her car was damaged and she was frightened out of her wits. But she is 
alive and was unharmed. That is concrete off of a bridge.
  There are thousands of bridges in this country, and all of us know 
that we could be about the business of dealing with our infrastructure, 
which would create a whole lot of jobs and not leave us to these 
ideological debates.
  I might add, if we approve this matter, in order for people to 
litigate, they have to come here to the Federal Circuit in the District 
of Columbia. That does not make sense to me, and it precludes those who 
would want to bring actions from being able to do so. This legislation 
allows that as the only vehicle.
  I might add, the litigation isn't concluded yet in many of the places 
where there may continue to be concerns--in South Dakota, where Mr. 
Cramer is close to--Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, 
Texas, and certainly in Nebraska.
  In the midst of trying to combat all of the problems that we have 
here in this country, attaching conditions and ultimatums to 
fundamental legislation is not the way to go about addressing the 
policy that was earlier raised and that I will raise in the previous 
question with reference to immigration.
  If my friends really want to debate immigration issues, they should 
work with us and the President to reach a comprehensive and bipartisan 
consensus. Perpetuating the Department of Homeland Security stalemate 
is as dangerous to our country's security as it is corrosive to our 
democratic process.
  Please, let's stop the pointless politicking. Let's end these games 
of chicken with our national security. Pass a clean DHS funding bill, 
and let's get back to the business of the American people.
  I didn't know that this was in the drawer in front of me. It kind of 
looks like a hamster. The wheel just keeps on spinning. But my little 
friend here is still with us and has, in many respects, like my 
friends, stopped, by virtue of his being inanimate, his spinning. And 
that is what the Republicans need to do: stop spinning like the hamster 
on the wheel and get on with the business of the United States of 
America.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous materials.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I may be an unnatural optimist, but I believe these 2 years that we 
are about to have in this institution are going to be the finest that I 
have seen in my lifetime. The reason I believe that is exactly because 
we are responding to the plea that my friend from Florida has made to 
get on about the business of the people.
  It is hard being in the minority around here. It is hard. My friends 
on the other side of the aisle may feel like they are in the minority 
today. For the last 4 years, we had the Speakership in this Chamber, 
but I sure felt like I was in the minority.

                              {time}  1430

  The Senate, held by the party on the other side; the White House, the 
party on the other side--and things got to be about party, day in and 
day out, and it wore on me, wore on me.
  That is not why I ran for Congress, Madam Speaker. It is not why you 
ran for Congress. It is not why any of my colleagues here ran for 
Congress. They ran for Congress to get about the business of the 
people.
  We are 1 month and a week into this new session of Congress, and the 
Senate has already managed to do what it hasn't been able to do for 4 
years, and that is hold an open debate and move legislation where 
Members had a chance to have their voice heard.

[[Page 2120]]

  We have that measure in front of us today. The only thing standing 
between us and considering that measure, Madam Speaker, is passing this 
rule. I am excited about it. I am excited about it.
  I am proud of what is in this underlying legislation. I am proud of 
the process that produced this legislation. I am proud of the 
leadership of folks like Mr. Cramer who moved it through the House 
first.
  Now, this is the Senate version, but this is the process that folks 
have worked in tandem. This is a process that folks back home can be 
proud of.
  Now, that is not to say every Member of this Chamber supports this 
legislation, Madam Speaker. They don't, and they have myriad reasons 
for choosing not to support this legislation, but the majority is going 
to work its will.
  I don't mean the majority, the Republican majority. I mean the 
majority--let's have a show of hands, see where people stand--and 
Republicans and Democrats are going to stand together and say, I 
support these American jobs. They are going to say, I support our 
largest trading partner, which is Canada. They are going to say, I 
support finality on a process that began 7 years ago.
  I long for the debate we will have on this House floor, and I hope 
the gentleman from Florida and I get to manage the rule when we bring 
the surface transportation bill to the floor of this House because 
America needs that surface transportation bill. We need to build 
America, Madam Speaker.
  What does it say when getting approval for this pipeline consumed 
more time than the entire construction of the Hoover Dam? Have we so 
hamstrung ourselves with bureaucracy that we can no longer do those 
great building projects as a Nation?
  I hope that the answer is no, but if the answer is yes, we have the 
ability in this Chamber to change it to no. We are a society that does 
great, great things. We do have responsibilities that are great, great 
responsibilities, and we cannot accomplish those in a partisan way. We 
cannot accomplish those without partnership and cooperation.
  For the next 2 years, Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity to move 
bills out of a Republican-led Congress that get signed by a Democratic-
led White House. That is kind of the way the Founding Fathers 
envisioned it, and I am pleased to be a small part of it today.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 100 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, 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. 
     861) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
     Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and 
     for other purposes. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 861.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on the previous question will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on adoption of House Resolution 100, if ordered, and approval of 
the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242, 
nays 183, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 71]

                               YEAS--242

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)

[[Page 2121]]


     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cartwright
     Duckworth
     Fitzpatrick
     Lee
     Roe (TN)
     Ruiz
     Sanchez, Loretta

                              {time}  1500

  Mrs. CAPPS and Mr. DeSAULNIER changed their votes from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. JONES and COFFMAN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248, 
noes 177, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 72]

                               AYES--248

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--177

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle (PA)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu (CA)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle (PA)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan

[[Page 2122]]


     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cartwright
     Duckworth
     Fitzpatrick
     Lee
     Roe (TN)
     Ruiz
     Sanchez, Loretta

                              {time}  1508

  Ms. JACKSON LEE changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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.

                          ____________________