[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14370-14375]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5711, PROHIBITING THE SECRETARY OF 
    THE TREASURY FROM AUTHORIZING CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO 
 COMMERCIAL PASSENGER AIRCRAFT TO IRAN; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
    H.R. 5982, MIDNIGHT RULES RELIEF ACT OF 2016; AND PROVIDING FOR 
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 18, 2016, THROUGH NOVEMBER 
                                28, 2016

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 921 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 921

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5711) to 
     prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from authorizing 
     certain transactions by a U.S. financial institution in 
     connection with the export or re-export of a commercial 
     passenger aircraft to the Islamic Republic of Iran. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
     Financial Services now printed in the bill, an amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 114-66 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 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 Financial 
     Services; (2) the further amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the 
     report, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     separately debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division 
     of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  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. 
     5982) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     provide for en bloc consideration in resolutions of 
     disapproval for ``midnight rules'', 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 the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except those printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments 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.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     November 18, 2016, through November 28, 2016--
        (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. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). The gentleman 
from Georgia is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.

                              {time}  1230


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous materials on House Resolution 921, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule 
forward on behalf of the Rules Committee.
  The rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 5711, to prohibit the 
Secretary of the Treasury from authorizing certain transactions by a 
U.S. financial institution in connection with the export or re-export 
of a commercial passenger aircraft to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The 
rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 5982, the Midnight 
Rules Relief Act.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee. It also provides a motion to recommit. Additionally, the 
bill provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, with 
a motion to recommit.
  On Monday, the Rules Committee heard testimony from the chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary, Bob Goodlatte; from Regulatory Reform, 
Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee Ranking Member Hank Johnson; 
and from the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Jeb 
Hensarling, and Congressman Denny Heck.
  H.R. 5982, the Midnight Rules Relief Act, was marked up and reported 
by the Judiciary Committee, and it enjoyed discussion at the committee 
level. The rule also combines H.R. 5715, the No Ex-Im Assistance for 
Terrorism Act, with H.R. 5711. Both of these bills were approved by the 
House Financial Services Committee in July. The rule makes in order 
five amendments to H.R. 5982 from our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle, and it makes in order the only amendment submitted on H.R. 
5711.
  I am a cosponsor of the Midnight Rules Relief Act, which was authored 
by my friend Darrell Issa of California. This bill addresses a problem 
that we have seen far too often in the administrations of both parties.
  As the President's term draws to a close, we have come to expect a 
raft of new regulations to be forced upon the American people. We 
usually see an even greater jump in the number of regulations during 
the lameduck period, which is between election day and Inauguration 
Day. These hurried rules--midnight rules--are too often used to force 
the political agenda of an outgoing administration on hardworking 
Americans as a last-ditch attempt to implement partisan priorities. As 
we enter a lameduck period after last week's election, this is a 
particularly meaningful time to consider this legislation. I think we 
can agree, regardless of party, the outgoing administrations should not 
be rushing to impose burdensome regulations on the American people.
  Already, we have seen the Obama administration issue numerous 
midnight rules, including multiple billion-dollar rules. In fact, this 
administration has issued or plans to issue at least 180 such rules. 
Just yesterday, we were presented with a clear example of this problem 
when the Department of the Interior announced the finalization of a new 
rule on methane venting and flaring. This rule was announced by the 
Bureau of Land Management in an attempt to lower output despite the 
costs it will impose on energy production and on numerous State 
regulations already in place. This is just one example

[[Page 14371]]

of an administration's rushing to finalize rules to cement a partisan 
policy agenda.
  We have seen this administration increase the regulatory burden on 
families and businesses by more than $100 billion. The last thing we 
should do is let them further that burden in the waning days of a 
lameduck Presidency. However, despite the clear evidence that the 
current administration is taking advantage of the ability to implement 
midnight rules, this is not a problem that is unique to only one 
political party. Lameduck regulations have been abused by both parties, 
but addressing this issue will help rein in that practice and ensure 
that Congress can exercise proper oversight authority.
  The Midnight Rules Relief Act would take steps to solve the problem 
by amending the Congressional Review Act to provide congressional 
authority to allow CRA resolutions that disapprove multiple midnight 
resolutions en bloc. Currently, the CRA can only be used for individual 
regulations. The amended Congressional Review Act would maintain 
flexibility while incentivizing outgoing administrations to avoid 
issuing broad and controversial midnight regulations.
  The rule before us today also provides for the consideration of a 
different but equally important bill. H.R. 5711 takes critical steps to 
protect taxpayers and national security. Under the Iran nuclear deal, 
which I vocally opposed, President Obama agreed to license the exports 
of commercial planes. Recently, the Treasury Department authorized the 
sale of almost 100 planes for Iran. I can't believe this is even 
something we have to talk about here today, but it is a deeply serious 
issue. The administration has allowed the world's foremost state 
sponsor of terrorism to receive U.S. financing and planes.
  H.R. 5711 takes the commonsense step of prohibiting the Secretary of 
the Treasury from authorizing U.S. financing in connection with the 
export of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran. It also makes 
permanent the financing prohibition for the Export-Import Bank 
assistance to the Government of Iran.
  I will say it again: this is just simply common sense. We should not 
and cannot be in the business of licensing the financing and sale of 
aircraft to a country that wishes to do us harm. The underlying bills 
that this rule provides consideration for are necessary to protect the 
American people and to restore smart policies that will protect us both 
here and abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding the customary time.
  The legislation before us today continues the majority's attempts to 
undermine the actions taken by President Obama. H.R. 5711 would force 
us to violate our international obligations under the Iran nuclear 
agreement, which was painstakingly negotiated by Secretary of State 
John Kerry, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, and Secretary of 
Energy Ernest Moniz with the permanent members of the U.N. Security 
Council, plus Germany.
  I think this is a great mistake by the United States to think that we 
will undermine it and that we have the ability to do that. It is very 
unlikely, in any event, that should this be undermined and this treaty 
be overturned that we could put that back together with the same group 
of people who negotiated it in the first place. In the process, it 
would put aircraft manufacturers here at home at a competitive 
disadvantage with their foreign competitors--something I am very much 
surprised that the majority would even contemplate.
  This legislation would also continue their attacks on the Export-
Import Bank, an economic driver that has helped to create jobs and to 
grow our economy by expanding American businesses' access to foreign 
markets. These attacks stand in stark contrast to the Export-Import 
Bank's long history of bipartisan support, including from Presidents 
all the way back to John Kennedy and Bill Clinton and to Republican 
Presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of advancing this misguided legislation, this 
Chamber should be supporting our local businesses and the good-paying 
jobs that they create.
  The majority should also give the Iran nuclear agreement the time to 
succeed instead of rushing forward with this bill that would already 
put the U.S. in direct violation of it. As I said earlier, if this 
agreement fails, we would not likely be able to reapply the sanctions 
or get the support of the Security Council. If we want to achieve our 
goal of ensuring that Iran is unable to build a nuclear weapon, this 
agreement remains the best available option for peacefully and 
verifiably cutting off its pathways.
  The second bill we are considering today, H.R. 5982, is a sad 
continuation of the majority's attempts to delegitimize any actions 
taken by President Obama. This time, the majority is trying to amend 
the Congressional Review Act and allow Congress to invalidate 
regulations en bloc that are proposed in the final 60 legislative days 
of the President's term. That means that potentially lifesaving 
measures could be repealed in the blink of an eye without there being 
any proper evaluation or examination of their impacts.
  Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers expect reasonable and thoughtful 
governance. They also expect us to uphold the Constitution, which 
clearly states that Presidents have 4-year terms. That means that 
President Obama is President of the United States for a full 4-year 
term, not a 3\3/4\-year term. It is a disgrace that President Obama 
couldn't even get a hearing on his Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick 
Garland. This unprecedented dereliction of the majority's 
responsibilities is symbolic of its failure to respect this President.
  So many issues deserve our attention in the closing days of Congress, 
and it is disappointing to me and to so many others that the majority 
has chosen to prioritize measures--that won't even be considered in the 
Senate--just to take parting political shots at President Obama. We 
were elected to get things done, Mr. Speaker, and these bills are 
really just solutions in search of problems that don't exist.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I do understand that, yes, our Presidents are elected for a full 4 
years. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with, 
though, is trying to push bills that cannot make it through these 
bodies in the proper way and with the proper oversight that Congress is 
supposed to have. We are set up in Article I of the Constitution as the 
body that makes the laws and sets the policy, along with Executive who 
carries out that policy. What we are simply saying is: don't go around 
what you can't get done in Congress and try to do it before you walk 
out the door. I understand that this is both sides, Mr. Speaker. This 
is not just this administration; it has been used by both. It just 
needs to stop. Congress has a role; the Executive has a role; the 
judiciary has a role. That is why the Founders put it together. This is 
simply saying: let's do it the right way.
  Also, just as a quick note on this issue of the planes to Iran, as a 
member of the military currently and also as one who served in Iraq, 
this is very concerning to me on many levels. Also, the problem that we 
see with Iran is not about not doing business--it is about the 
protection of American interests and American assets. In fact, this is 
a bipartisan issue. One of the Financial Services Committee members 
from across the aisle, Mr. Sherman, actually opposed this, but he 
actually said this--and it really makes a lot of sense. He said:

       Until Iran Air gets out of the business of supporting 
     terrorism and supporting Assad's regime in Syria, the United 
     States should not license the sale of aircraft to Iran Air. 
     It is virtually certain that Iran Air will use these aircraft 
     for nefarious purposes.

  We are just saying: put our country in a safe position. We are not 
talking about denying business, but we are

[[Page 14372]]

talking about what many of us feel was a very bad decision with the 
Iran nuclear deal and about, simply here, just putting us back in an 
Article I position.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York. I think we just need to 
do our business and just put our interests first, not only here, but 
also abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this, and I appreciate the statement that she just made 
a moment ago in opposing the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on just one area, which is H.R. 5711, 
designed to prohibit the transaction with Iran.
  I couldn't agree more with my friend on the other side of the aisle, 
who is managing this issue for the Republicans, in that we ought to put 
America's interests first. That is why the overwhelming majority of 
independent experts agreed with the Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action, 
which was designed to make it harder and less likely that Iran would 
develop nuclear weapons.
  Now, who is going to forget Benjamin Netanyahu before us and others 
who were hysterical that Iran was just months away from a nuclear 
breakout and the threat that that posed? I, for one, agree that I don't 
want Iran to have nuclear weapons. I think that would be horrific. It 
is wrong to put nuclear weapons in their hands with the other cascading 
effects that could occur if they were to obtain nuclear weapons. That 
is why the United States--Secretary Kerry--and five other countries 
worked with us to use the power of our sanctions and international 
cooperation to make that nuclear breakout less likely.
  And what has happened since that agreement was signed and entered 
into?
  As a practical matter, Iran has complied with what it said it would 
do, and that nuclear threshold for Iran's having the potential of 
generating nuclear weapons has grown longer. They have reduced the 
number of centrifuges--less nuclear fissile material. This is what we 
wanted, and they have done it.

                              {time}  1245

  To this point, they have complied. We have complied, for example, by 
giving them back their own money that was frozen as a result of the 
events of the Iranian Revolution.
  This avenue of trying to undermine the agreement--and make no 
mistake, Republican leadership and a Trump administration is likely to 
try to overturn it altogether--will continue a pattern of mismanagement 
by the United States of our relationship with one of the oldest 
civilizations in the Middle East. This goes back over 3,000 years.
  Iranians are not Arabs. They are Persians. They have their own 
interests, their own identity. It is twice as large as Iraq and 
Afghanistan, more populous, more sophisticated. Pretending that we are 
going to attack them, as some of the people that Mr. Trump is 
considering for key positions have favored, would be a nightmare.
  Remember, the United States overthrew the popularly elected leader of 
Iran, working with the British in 1953, and installed the Shah on the 
throne.
  The United States sided with Saddam Hussein, who we thought was so 
evil that we upset the order in the Middle East and undertook that 
disastrous war. We sided with him as he used weapons of mass 
destruction against the Iranians.
  Now, who would blame the Iranians, given our history, for not being 
friendly toward the United States? The fact is--and it can be verified 
by friends of yours who may have visited Iran--that it is actually the 
country whose people have the most positive feelings toward the United 
States. After 9-11, there were candlelight vigils in Tehran in sympathy 
with Americans who were attacked.
  Now, many people have a cartoon image of the Iranian situation. It is 
complex. There are some very bad people in power in Iran, and we need 
to stand up to them. Many of those people want this deal to fail, just 
like some hardliners in the United States want it to fail. I don't 
think we should serve their interests.
  Preventing the United States to follow through on this agreement, for 
example, with enabling them to purchase Boeing planes, not giving us 
over $17 billion in business, not putting over 100,000 Americans to 
work and building relationships, I think, is foolish.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in fact, if the agreement falls apart 
and the sanctions collapse, they will get their planes. They will just 
buy Airbus planes, not Boeing. Most importantly, we will be undermining 
an opportunity to use diplomacy to make the world safer.
  I have been appalled how difficult it is for us to focus on the big 
picture. Absolutely push back at some of the bad guys. Stand up to 
problems that they create. We just reinstituted the sanctions against 
misbehavior by Iran, and I voted for that yesterday. But don't 
undermine an agreement that is working--Iran has already got much of 
what they wanted out of this deal. If we undermine it, they can walk 
away. They have got some money, and they can have world opinion on 
their side and go ahead and develop nuclear weapons. That is crazy.
  We ought to abide by our agreements. We ought to stand up to them 
where they are wrong. We ought to promote interaction where we can. We 
ought to work with the very vibrant Iranian American community, which I 
hope Donald Trump doesn't deport. They are law-abiding, very effective 
citizens in the United States. We ought to be working with them to work 
for the cause of international peace, strengthening the American 
economy while we make all of us make nuclear weapons less likely and 
strengthen international cooperation.
  It was a signal achievement to have China, Russia, Germany, Great 
Britain, and France work with us on this agreement. We should not 
undercut it. We should honor it.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bill that would 
prohibit lobbyists from serving on President-elect Trump's transition 
team.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, these bills will be going nowhere in the 
Senate, and we should be happy about that. We shouldn't be frittering 
away the closing days of this session of Congress with legislation 
designed to delegitimize the work of our President.
  There are major issues that face our country that the American people 
are crying out for us to address, from our crumbling infrastructure to 
the skyrocketing cost of education. We were elected to solve these 
problems, Mr. Speaker. These bills, again, utterly fail to do anything 
about any of that. Our constituents deserve more; the taxpayers deserve 
more.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I appreciate a good debate. This rule actually deals with two. One is 
the midnight rule, which again has been abused by both sides.
  Also, as it was just spoken of on the floor, there is this issue of 
the funds for the planes for Iran. Let me just say, I would love to go 
back and discuss the Iran deal that was put into place. I have been on 
this floor many times opposing that deal. We can talk about it. I don't 
think it was ever put into place to stop.
  Actually, there is this issue that they have complied. I just find it 
laughable

[[Page 14373]]

that they have complied. They have tested rockets. They have sent 
people overseas. They have not complied with this.
  There is one thing that I agree with that the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer) said just a moment ago. I agree with him when he said: 
Yes, Iran has got everything they want. They have got the money. They 
keep going. Their centrifuges are spinning.
  I will just say this about this issue right here: If we could 
actually look at this, I will support Iran when Iran is willing to be a 
part of the world culture and starts recognizing Israel's right to 
exist. I will support Iran when they are signing their agreement and 
not shouting ``death to America.''
  Let's play on a level playing field. I have got no problem with that. 
We are not debating that. Unfortunately, that is the deal the next 
administration can deal with. At least, I will have some sympathy for 
them when they quit breaking the very agreement we are saying that they 
are honoring. I just can't see that.
  So these funds, I don't want them used. There are assets that we 
have. They are military assets. They are my brothers and sisters in 
arms right now who are all over the world that could be impacted by 
this.
  So as we go forward, this is a commonsense rule for two reasons. We 
are not going to use the bank accounts of Americans to buy planes for 
Iran that can be used against us in a war.
  We are not going to have midnight rules by both parties. It doesn't 
matter which party here. This is Article I, this is basic Constitution. 
Let the Congress do its work, not a President carrying out an agenda.
  These are important bills that make smart, commonsense policy changes 
to protect Americans. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support 
the legislation provided for by the rule and the rule itself.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Rule for H.R. 
5711, the ``Block U.S. Financing for Iranian Aircraft Purchases,'' and 
H.R. 5982, the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016.''
  I thank Chairman Sessions and Chairwoman Slaughter for their work in 
bringing this Rule before the House for consideration.
  I would like to thank the Rules Committee for making my amendment in 
order for H.R. 5982, the ``Midnight Rule Relief Act,'' which exempts 
any rule promulgated to prevent, respond to, or mitigate matters of 
critical national security.
  H.R. 5711, is in direct violation of a provision of the Iran Nuclear 
Agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA 
would be undermined by passage of this bill.
  The Administration has issued a veto threat on the bill, stating in 
part, ``This bill, if enacted, would contravene U.S. commitments in the 
JCPOA and interfere with its successful implementation.
  H.R. 5711 would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from 
authorizing transactions by the U.S. financial institutions in 
connection with the export and re-export of passenger aircraft made 
prior to enactment of the bill.
  The United States has a long tradition of remaining faithful to our 
commitments and our international partners, and a reversal of this 
principle undercuts our credibility, diminishes our ability to lead 
globally, and threatens the very alliances we rely upon in implementing 
the JCPOA.
  We can anticipate that should this bill become law our closest allies 
would view this bill as a violation of our JCPOA commitments and Iran 
would take the issue to the Joint Commission.''
  In June, it was disclosed that Boeing had a Memorandum of Agreement 
with Iran Air for the sale of 80 commercial passenger planes.
  In September, the Treasury Department then issued a license for the 
sale of all 80 of these Boeing planes to Iran Air.
  The license also authorized U.S. financial institutions to engage in 
all transactions necessary to provide financing or other financial 
services to effectuate the sale of the Boeing planes.
  This bill prohibits the involvement of U.S. financial institutions in 
the sale of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran Air, and would put 
U.S. aircraft manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage with their 
foreign competitors, whose access to financing would not be subject to 
the same constraints.
  This will translate into jobs lost in the United States.
  Promises to bring jobs in October, but working to put people out of 
work in November is not what the public wants or expects of Congress.
  Complaints about Iran have access to $50 billion of unfrozen oil 
escrow funds as a result of the JCPOA and charging that this $50 
billion could be redirected to Iran's destabilizing activities in the 
region is now preventing some of those funds from coming to a U.S. 
company that would create jobs here at home.
  This GOP bill would PREVENT Iran from spending well over $50 billion 
on commercial passenger aircraft from Boeing and other manufacturers as 
well as on air infrastructure improvements.
  This Congress has much to do with in the 13 days of official business 
remaining.
  The 114th Congress has to complete work on:
  11 of the 12 House Appropriations bills;
  Criminal Justice Reform;
  Funding for the Flint Water Crisis;
  Restoring the Voting Rights Act;
  Protecting children with disabilities access to public education;
  Immigration Reform;
  Funding for the Louisiana Flooding;
  Funding for the damage caused by Hurricane Matthew; and
  Cybersecurity of the Nation's Critical Infrastructure.
  It is beyond shocking and unacceptable that tens of thousands of 
citizens living in Flint Michigan have been exposed to toxic levels of 
lead in their drinking water.
  Not only will the dangers and hazards of this disaster be felt by the 
residents of Flint Michigan for years to come, but the American public 
remains at risk to national security vulnerabilities exposed through 
our most basic infrastructure that supports the delivery of clean water 
to homes and businesses nationwide.
  The trust and ability to protect our citizens' basic right to clean 
water has been shaken, while the leadership of this Congress does 
nothing.
  We all have a duty to ensure justice and protection of our citizens.
  Criminal Justice Reform is a pressing issue that Congress must 
address.
  As Judge Learned Hand observed, ``If we are to keep our democracy, 
there must be one commandment: thou shalt not ration justice.''
  Reforming the criminal justice system so that it is fairer and 
delivers equal justice to all persons is one of the great moral 
imperatives of our time.
  For reform to be truly meaningful, we must look at every stage at 
which our citizens interact with the system--from policing in our 
communities and the first encounter with law enforcement, to the 
charging and manner of attaining a conviction, from the sentence 
imposed to reentry and collateral consequences.
  House Democrats, led by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John 
Conyers of Michigan and me, as Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and 
Investigations, have accepted and embraced the challenge of reforming 
the criminal justice system and developed many innovative legislative 
remedies to correct many of the most glaring inequities and racial 
disparities in the most critical areas of the system.
  This is an important topic and one that Congress must turn its 
attention to with urgency and unity of effort to:
  address the harms caused;
  get an accounting of what happened;
  understand how the water was poisoned;
  make the lives of people damaged by this tragedy whole;
  find justice for those lives that may have been lost; and
  determine and provide for the long-term health needs of those 
impacted.
  Today, the water in Flint, Michigan is not safe to drink and we have 
no concrete answer on when it may be safe to drink in the future.
  Flint, Michigan like so many communities across the nation really 
felt the brunt of the financial crisis created by the abuse of new home 
lending practices and deceptive investment schemes that hid the 
weaknesses in the economy until the great recession spread across the 
nation beginning in late 2008.
  The financial damage done to communities like Flint in the form of 
steep declines in property values, which caused significant declines in 
property tax income.
  This was not just Flint's problem, but a national reality--for 
financially strapped cities, towns, school boards, and municipal 
governments who rely on Congress to fund all 12 Congressional 
appropriations bills to provide them with much needed revenue to meet 
the needs of their citizens.
  In the 51 years since its passage on August 6, 1965, the Voting 
Rights Act has safeguarded the right of Americans to vote and

[[Page 14374]]

stood as an obstacle to many of the more egregious attempts by certain 
states and local jurisdictions to game the system by passing 
discriminatory changes to their election laws or administrative 
policies.
  In signing the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965, President Lyndon 
Johnson said:
  `The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for 
breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which 
imprison men because they are different from other men.'
  But on June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. 
Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, 
and paralyzed the application of the VRA's Section 5 preclearance 
requirements, which protect minority voting rights where voter 
discrimination has historically been the worst. Since 1982, Section 5 
has stopped more than 1,000 discriminatory voting changes in their 
tracks, including 107 discriminatory changes in Texas.
  Although much progress has been made with regard to Civil Rights 
there is still much work to be done in order to prevent systemic voter 
suppression and discrimination within our communities and we must 
remain ever vigilant and oppose schemes that will abridge or dilute the 
precious right to vote.
  H.R. 885, `Voting Rights Amendments Act of 2015,' of which I am an 
original co-sponsor, repairs the damage done to the Voting Rights Act 
by the Supreme Court decision and is capable of winning majorities in 
the House and Senate and the signature of the President.
  For millions of Americans, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is sacred 
treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary 
Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish 
extraordinary things.
  The Voting Rights Act is needed as much today to prevent another 
epidemic of voting disenfranchisement as Dr. Salk's vaccine is still 
needed to prevent another polio epidemic and I am calling again for 
Speaker Boehner to bring H.R. 885, `Voting Rights Amendments Act of 
2015' to the floor for a vote this year.
  As of October 3, 2016 the Texas Education Agency has 30 days to 
respond to an order by the U.S. Department of Education to fix its 
terribly broken system that serves special needs children.
  Because the arbitrary cap limiting the number of special needs 
students enrolled in a school district set and enforced by TEA clearly 
violated both the letter and spirit of the IDEA Act, on September 12, 
2016, I wrote Education Secretary John King to demand that the U.S. 
Department of Education ``review, investigate, and take immediate and 
appropriate action to remedy the injury currently being suffered at 
least 250,000 special needs school children resulting from the 
systematic and intentional actions of the Texas state government to 
deprive these students of the rights guaranteed them by the 1990 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA Act).''
  Hubert Humphrey once said that the ``moral test of government is how 
it treats:
  those who are in the dawn of life, the children;
  those who are in the twilight of life, the aged;
  and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the 
handicapped.''
  By this measure, the Texas state government has been failing the 
moral test for more than a decade when it comes to fair treatment of 
special needs students.
  This should not have happened in Texas and we must act to be sure 
that it is not happening in other states.
  Across the nation, approximately 13% of school children receive the 
special education benefits guaranteed by the IDEA Act.
  In Texas, however, the comparable figure is 8.5%, by far the lowest 
of any state in the nation.
  If the level of service provided by the State of Texas even barely 
met the national average, an additional 250,000 special need students 
would be receiving the educational opportunity they desperately need 
and deserve.
  As I document in my letter to Education Secretary King, ``the real-
world consequence of this deplorable decision is that vital supports to 
children with autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, 
dyslexia, epilepsy, mental illnesses, speech impediments, traumatic 
brain injuries, even blindness and deafness, are being denied to 
approximately 250,000 Texas children.''
  When a school district, for example, ignores a mother's request for a 
special education evaluation, the emotional and psychological damage 
inflicted on her child who may be forced to repeat the second and third 
grade is incalculable and may be irreparable.
  My thoughts and prayers continue to be with the with the people of 
Louisiana who were adversely affected by the historic 1,000 year 
flooding event that has devastated the Baton Rouge area of Louisiana.
  This disaster is the latest reminder of the vulnerabilities posed by 
extreme weather events faced by people living along the Gulf Coast.
  The National Weather Service reported 21.86 inches of rain falling 
within 48 hours caused levees to overtop and rivers to breach their 
banks.
  Global climate change cares not if you believe in it; the force of 
nature will do its will at the expense, pain and suffering of our 
nation's citizens.
  This Congress is about to end its business without taking care of the 
people of Louisiana devastated by the floods earlier this year.
  On Oct. 7 in Florida, a peak surge of 9.88 feet above normal was 
measured at a tide gauge at Fernandina Beach, Florida.
  Storm surge flooding affected the St. Augustine area, including major 
flooding on Anastasia Island where water was reported to be 2.5 feet 
above ground level.
  To the south in nearby Flagler Beach, Florida, parts of A1A were 
washed out by the storm surge.
  The Northwestern-Jacksonville conducted a storm survey and found a 
new inlet was carved between Marineland and Matanzas Inlet, between 
Palm Coast and St. Augustine Beach, Florida.
  The St. Johns River in northeast Florida reached its highest level on 
record at Shands Bridge, along with 3 to 4.3 feet of storm surge 
inundation reported at the Racy Point, Red Bay Point and 1-295 bridge 
tide gauges.
  Early in the morning on Oct. 8, the St. Johns River was flowing 
backwards.
  Matthew's storm surge coupled with high tide lead to a record tide 
level at Ft. Pulaski, Georgia, early Oct. 8, and storm surge inundation 
roughly waist-deep was reported in parts of Charleston, South Carolina.
  We also should not forget Hurricane Matthew--what it did to Haiti and 
parts of the Southern United States requires Congressional attention to 
relieve people who are suffering.
  Even before Hurricane Matthew struck, more than a quarter of Haiti's 
11 million people lived in extreme poverty, surviving on less than 
$1.25 a day.
  Haiti's people once again, in their great sorrow, need our prayers, 
our generosity, and our compassion.
  Much of what the people of Haiti have worked and fought tirelessly 
for over the last few years has been wiped out in this the third major 
natural disaster since 2010'S ruthless earthquake.
  Because of Hurricane Matthew hundreds of thousands of Haitians have 
little or no access to potable water or basic health services, and 
Haiti is facing an impending food crisis according to local and 
international organizations, and the government of Haiti.
  This Congress should replace the funding used by the Centers for 
Disease Control to address the Zika Virus threat, which depleted funds 
that were for Ebola response.
  We have not seen the full impact of Zika Virus, nor will we for 
several months as women give birth to children who may be impacted by 
the disease.
  I urge my colleagues to spend the last few legislative days available 
to us to make the American people our first priority.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 921 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec 5. 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. 
     6324) to amend the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 to 
     prohibit the use of funds provided to the President-elect and 
     the Vice President-elect under such Act for any services or 
     facilities provided by registered lobbyists. 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 Oversight and Government 
     Reform. 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

[[Page 14375]]

     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. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 6324.

        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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 will be postponed.

                          ____________________