[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1677-1686]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3442, DEBT MANAGEMENT AND FISCAL 
  RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
         3293, SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 609 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 609

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3442) to provide further means of 
     accountability of the United States debt and promote fiscal 
     responsibility. 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 Ways and Means. 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 A 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. 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. 
     3293) to provide for greater accountability in Federal 
     funding for scientific research, to promote the progress of 
     science in the United States that serves that national 
     interest. 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 
     Science, Space, and Technology. 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

[[Page 1678]]

     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.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a rule and the 
underlying bills, both of which will enhance accountability and create 
better processes for our Federal Government.
  Necessary legislation is what we are talking about today. Legislation 
that will help the Federal Government not only in its processes, but 
that will allow the American people to have confidence in what their 
government does not only on their behalf, but for a better future for 
the American citizens, including our children and grandchildren.
  We are here today because these are important issues, and we are 
addressing them. That is what Speaker Ryan wants this body to be doing. 
Speaker Ryan wants us to bring our best ideas to the floor, to make 
sure the American people understand what they are, to fully debate 
them, and to have all the open processes that are necessary to make 
sure that we are bringing to the American people the best ideas of 
their elected representatives. That is why we are here today.
  I also want to point out that the Rules Committee, of which I am 
chairman, asked Members to submit their ideas and amendments regarding 
these bills, and 14 amendments were made in order. That means that the 
Rules Committee met, we looked, and we had discussions with Members 
about the ideas that they have. Fourteen were made in order last night 
by the Rules Committee, and I am proud of that.
  As a result, our resolution provides that H.R. 3442, the Debt 
Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2015, which was altered and 
supported by the gentleman from Coppell, Texas, Congressman Kenny 
Marchant, and H.R. 3293, the Scientific Research in the National 
Interest Act, which was brought to the committee by the young chairman 
of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Lamar Smith from San 
Antonio, Texas, will both be considered today under a structured rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I would normally run through my opening dialogue that I 
would have about what is in these bills, why they are important, and 
what they would do. But because of time considerations today, one of 
our newest Members of Congress wants to speak. He has got a meeting in 
a few minutes. I would like to ask him if he would at this time take 
part in my opening statement.
  I yield to the gentleman from Windsor, Colorado (Mr. Buck).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for years, our Nation has limped along from 
debt crisis to debt crisis. Every time, we say to ourselves ``just a 
little more spending today, and we will fix this mess tomorrow,'' but 
tomorrow never seems to come, and the ocean of red ink gets deeper and 
deeper with each passing day. Thanks to this ``spend now'' and ``save 
never'' mentality, the national debt has soared to $19 trillion, and 
there is no end in sight. The Federal Government has been overspending 
for so long that we are financially bankrupt. If we continue to pass 
this debt on to our children and grandchildren, we are also morally 
bankrupt. We need a solution to our constant budget busting.
  H.R. 3442 will help our Nation address this fiscal crisis. By 
requiring the administration to testify before Congress, we are 
requiring them to bring realistic, serious solutions to the table. We 
are calling on them to offer a plan for actually reducing our debt, 
and--this is key--we are requiring these solutions before we reach the 
point of no return.
  What we have wrought in debt and deficit isn't merely a fiscal 
challenge or an economic problem--it is poisonous to our human 
potential. It is time for the Federal Government to start making the 
same tough choices that small businesses and folks in Colorado are 
making every day, and this bill is a good start.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The original intent also of a piece of legislation that we have goes 
back to 1950. The legislation that created the National Science 
Foundation was there at the time to support science that was in the 
national interest. Unfortunately, the NSF has funded too many wasteful 
projects under the ideas that have been presented to us by the Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee, the purposes of which were probably 
nebulous at best, which would be the argument that Chairman Lamar Smith 
made with us, and which were, clearly, not necessarily in the national 
interest.
  We heard testimony that every single project that the National 
Science Foundation handled was in the American people's best interest. 
We think that our discussion with Members of Congress today will show 
them that we need to change the wording to where the national interest 
is obligatory to a proposal before a proposal is given. You have to 
prove it is in the Nation's best interest to spend money. Examples of 
such projects include $700,000 to create a climate change-themed 
musical, $38,000 to study prehistoric rabbit hunting on the Iberian 
Peninsula, and--perhaps my favorite of all--$605,000 to study why 
people around the world cheat on their taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is hard-earned money that was spent that I do not 
believe was in the national interest. ``In the interest of the Nation'' 
means that it needs to be prioritized and that it needs to be something 
that would produce an outcome that would, from the National Science 
Foundation, benefit the American people.
  H.R. 3293 directly benefits the American people by promoting greater 
accountability--a mission statement, so to speak--in funding scientific 
research, not only at the NSF, but that also ensures that the research 
conducted is always in the national interest.
  This is, I believe, a commonsense, bipartisan answer. Certainly, 
Lamar Smith, as the chairman of the committee, brought forth the ideas 
on a bipartisan basis to ensure that what we would do is not get in the 
way of any projects that are currently out there. Instead, anything 
that is in the future would have to subscribe to the conditions of the 
national interest.
  Reckless and mandatory spending has placed our national finances and 
our economy--including our jobs, our infrastructure, and our future--in 
peril. Today, the total debt is subject to the limit, which includes 
Treasury securities held by Federal trust funds and other accounts, 
which stand at over $19 trillion. Additionally, the Congressional 
Budget Office projects that the 2016 deficit will be $544 billion. You 
can see that we are not just at $19 trillion but that we are adding to 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, you know and I know, in just a matter of weeks, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Tom Price), the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, will be bringing forth to this floor bills that address what 
our year is

[[Page 1679]]

going to look like in 2017. The President of the United States has a 
chance to do this. Every year, the President submits his budget. It is 
$1 trillion more a year in spending. It is more government. It is more 
spending. It adds more things to our debt. Republicans, since 2011--
since we have been in the majority--have tried to submit budgets that 
have held us in place; but by holding us in place, which is the best we 
can do, it does not mean that we were addressing creating a surplus, 
which would be required not to add to that debt.
  So where we are is back to the American people again with an 
opportunity for them to understand our processes--a budget, an 
opportunity to get to where we do not add to the debt. Yet what we are 
here to do today is not the budget but to address what we do under a 
circumstance when we have a debt limit by which we have met the 
constitutional constraints, the legal constraints, and what we are 
going to do in moving forward.
  We are taking a bill that comes directly from Kenny Marchant, who is 
a member of our Ways and Means Committee, who has spent a number of 
years in thinking through how we can put a spotlight--how we can put 
the light of day--on this issue to the point at which we can talk about 
it, understand more about it, and do something about it. That is also 
the second bill: the National Science Foundation, what is in the 
national interest, and, clearly, looking at the debt.
  If we are going to have a debt limit increase, how do we as Members 
of Congress, under our constitutional powers, understand not just the 
issue but also the obligation that we have when we take votes so that 
we know what is at risk, what the plan would be, and, perhaps more 
importantly, how we can work together with the administration--
Republicans and Democrats--to make sure we get a better answer.
  Now, there is one last point that needs to be made, and I think it 
was made yesterday in the committee, not just by the gentleman Tom 
Cole, not just by Virginia Foxx from North Carolina, and not just by 
me, which is that we don't know who the President is going to be next 
year. We don't know who the Secretary of the Treasury is going to be 
next year. The gentleman, the author of the bill, thinks that that is a 
prime reason his legislation should be a bipartisan, commonsense piece 
of legislation so that we are saying whoever it is has the authority 
and the responsibility to come to Congress and give us the insight.
  Let's work together so that we avoid debt, so that we avoid making a 
mistake, and, mostly, so that we are on the same page together. That is 
why we are here today, Mr. Speaker.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my good 
friend and distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 3293, a bill to hamstring the National Science 
Foundation and its gold standard review process; and I rise in strong 
opposition to H.R. 3442, a misnamed debt management bill that provides 
Congress with no new information about the debt limit and that does 
nothing to actually prevent default.
  Despite a promise from Speaker Ryan and House Republican leadership 
for an open and deliberative process, this rule makes in order only 14 
of the 47 amendments that were submitted on both pieces of legislation 
to our committee--only six amendments for the Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee's bill and eight for the debt limit bill. 
Democrats on the Rules Committee offered an open rule so that both 
Democratic and Republican Members could have an opportunity to make 
their views known on this bill, but as has become the custom, the 
Democrats voted for an open process, and every single Republican voted 
against an open process.
  Members should have the opportunity to offer their ideas on the House 
floor, and we should be having a robust debate on these issues. Here is 
a crazy idea, Mr. Speaker: Maybe, if we actually opened up the process 
and allowed for a full debate, we could actually pass bipartisan 
legislation that would move through the legislative process and then go 
on to the President's desk where he would then sign it into law. Yet, 
for the most part, my friends on the other side of the aisle don't seem 
interested in working with Democrats to advance common goals that will 
actually help the American people, and the legislation before us today 
is no exception.
  H.R. 3442 requires the Secretary of the Treasury to appear before 
Congress and submit a report on the administration's debt reduction 
proposals. I have got some good news for my friends. The Treasury 
Secretary already regularly meets with Congress to discuss the debt 
limit, and the President offers proposals to address the debt and the 
deficit in his annual budgets. I would say to my colleagues on the 
Republican side that it is okay--you can ask questions. That is what 
hearings are for. You can ask questions about the debt and deficit 
reduction.
  In fact, just yesterday, President Obama sent his fiscal year 2017 
budget request to Congress, which included over $2.9 trillion in 
deficit reduction over the coming decade--this on top of the $4 
trillion to $5 trillion in deficit reduction already achieved since 
2010. If my friends are interested in hearing about these proposals to 
reduce our deficit, perhaps they should reconsider their unprecedented 
and insulting decision to exclude the OMB from testifying on the 
administration's budget proposal. Such a contemptuous attitude demeans 
Congress and the American people.
  In addition to its annual budget, the administration also provides 
the information requested by H.R. 3442 in the form of the Mid-Session 
Review, of the Daily Treasury Statement, of the Monthly Treasury 
Statement, of the Monthly Statement of the Public Debt, of the 
Schedules of Federal Debt, and of the Financial Report of the United 
States Government.
  The Treasury manages our debt, but it is Congress that holds the 
power of the purse. It is our responsibility to raise the debt limit 
when it is reached, and I would point out that it is the legislative 
decisions made by Congress that determine the level of debt.
  I say to my Republican friends, if you don't want to deal with the 
issue of raising the debt limit, then don't accumulate all of these 
bills. The debt limit debate is about making sure we live up to our 
financial obligations, the obligations that this Chamber agreed to.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, we had a debate about deficit 
reduction and how to deal with the debt. Members on both sides of the 
aisle offered suggestions on ways to reduce our deficit, and that is an 
important discussion we should be having because it is a big issue. Yet 
this bill is not about deficit reduction; it is not about trying to get 
our debt under control; and it is not a serious attempt to help us 
avoid future default. The Republican majority has threatened default on 
at least three separate occasions: in 2011, when default was narrowly 
avoided with the Budget Control Act; in 2013, when Republican extremism 
led to a government shutdown, costing our fragile economy $24 billion 
and 120,000 private sector jobs; and this past fall, when Democrats 
helped to pass the bipartisan budget agreement despite opposition from 
two-thirds of the Republicans in this Congress.
  I would like to point out what is missing in this bill that we are 
going to be talking about later on this week. The report required by 
this legislation would exclude the most important information Congress 
needs when the debt limit is reached, which is an analysis of the 
catastrophic consequences of default. If this were a serious attempt to 
address our debt, I would think that the majority would want to know 
which bills the Treasury would need to stop paying if Congress failed 
to raise the debt limit. Would veterans stop receiving their benefits? 
Would Medicare providers stop being reimbursed? Would students stop 
receiving Pell grants? The chairman of the Rules

[[Page 1680]]

Committee said in his opening statement that the American people want 
us to do something. I agree.

                              {time}  1330

  This is not doing something. This is trying to point the finger 
somewhere else so that we can avoid responsibility for doing our job.
  If we were serious about this issue, maybe we ought to think about 
actually passing legislation that would help reduce our deficit and pay 
down our debt. Maybe we ought to be talking about comprehensive 
immigration reform. CBO says that we would save hundreds of billions of 
dollars for our National Treasury if we actually did that, did 
something positive to resolve our immigration crisis and, in doing so, 
we would save all this money that could go to reducing our deficit.
  Maybe one of the things we ought to be talking about here is actually 
not passing tax breaks for wealthy people that we don't pay for because 
that adds to the bills that we accumulate here in Congress. If you want 
to give Donald Trump another tax cut, pay for it. That is all.
  Maybe we ought to talk about dealing with the issue of these war 
costs. I mean, we can't even come together and actually debate and vote 
on an AUMF as these new wars are popping up all over the world.
  By the way, if we did, maybe we could talk about the cost, which, by 
the way, a big chunk of these war costs aren't even paid for. They are 
put on our credit card. I mean, the only people sacrificing in these 
wars are the men and women who we put in harm's way and their families. 
The rest of us do nothing. We don't even ask the American people to pay 
for it.
  Well, here is an idea: if people don't want to pay for these wars, 
maybe we ought not to go. Just putting them on our credit card should 
not be an answer. Those are the kinds of things we should be talking 
about here today if we were serious about getting our budget under 
control.
  Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is duplicative, 
unnecessary, and a waste of time. It does nothing to prevent future 
Republican threats of default, and I strongly oppose this effort.
  This week, also, Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are bringing to the 
floor H.R. 3293, another antiscience piece of legislation. Now, some 
might call this a thinly veiled attempt by the majority to dictate what 
the National Science Foundation spends their funding on, but there 
really isn't even a thin veil trying to cover up what this is. This is 
a blatant attempt to coerce the NSF into only funding projects that fit 
into the Republican political messaging agenda.
  The NSF receives upwards of 50,000 proposals a year. Out of all these 
proposals, only about 20 percent end up receiving funding. The NSF puts 
the applications through a rigorous process of peer review in order to 
determine which proposals they will fund.
  I would like to emphasize the fact that this is a peer review, not a 
congressional review. It is a peer review. Congress does not review 
these applications because the vast majority of us are not scientists. 
I am not a scientist. I don't think many of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are scientists.
  The NSF review process is also designed to be confidential in order 
to protect against any internal or external bias. Injecting 
congressional interference and disruption into a well-functioning 
process will have a drastically negative effect.
  Now, it should come as no surprise that a big part of the Republican 
majority's argument is that the NSF is focusing too much of its funding 
on projects studying climate change. I tried to figure out what the 
hook was, and I found that that is it.
  I have said this here before, and I will keep saying it until we stop 
debating these ridiculous bills. We know that climate change is real. 
We see it. We live it. The scientific community overwhelmingly has 
verified it. Climate change is not a theory. It is not a hoax. It is 
not some silly fantasy. The NSF should be funding research that is 
directed toward understanding and mitigating the effects of climate 
change.
  The majority on the Science Committee has been on a crusade to inject 
itself into NSF's independent grant review process. The committee has 
demanded an explanation on how roughly 40 studies could possibly serve 
our national interests. Now, we have seen time and time again that 
basic research leads to positive, life-changing outcomes never imagined 
by researchers.
  Congress certainly does not have the experience or the knowledge to 
predetermine the future value of a research project. Just because the 
title of a project doesn't sound particularly overwhelmingly impressive 
doesn't mean it isn't, and we have a gazillion examples of that in the 
research that has been done in the NSF.
  It is best to leave the scientific review process in the hands of our 
world-class scientists who resoundingly oppose efforts to interfere 
with NSF's rigorous review process. I join them in strong opposition to 
this bill.
  Now, once again, Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor debating two bills 
that are going nowhere. Each bill has received a veto threat from the 
White House because this is not serious legislation. Mr. Speaker, this 
is just more political fodder for the right wing of the Republican 
Party, sound bites for my friends on the other side of the aisle to use 
while on the campaign trail to attempt to sound like they are dealing 
with issues in a serious manner when, in fact, they are not. It doesn't 
matter what year it is. The American people elected us to solve 
problems, not pad Republicans' political talking points.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this restrictive rule and the two 
partisan pieces of legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee made in order more 
amendments than Senator Harry Reid did as majority leader over 2 
years--in just 1 day. In just 1 day, more amendments were made in order 
in the United States House of Representatives. So I get it. I do.
  I think I would be on the defensive, also, if I were my colleagues, 
my friends that are Democrats, because what they are doing to this 
country doesn't work, and they are defensive about it. So they view 
anything that Republicans do, even on a bipartisan basis but doesn't 
fit their narrative as, ``this is political.''
  Well, balancing the budget is in the best interest of the American 
people. Presenting realistic budgets--not a trillion dollars more in 
spending and bigger government--is exactly the kind of policies that 
Republicans do believe.
  By the way, if they were really serious about trying to fix this 
global warming, they would look in their own backyard with home heating 
fuel, which is diesel fuel, which they are putting all through the 
Northeast to heat their homes. That is a huge contributor to global 
warming, as opposed to clean, natural gas. They can make their own 
decisions. But I would say back to them: I think you ought to measure 
three times and have seen once, not just go accusing other people of 
things.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, we had the gentleman 
from Coppell, Texas, Kenny Marchant, a great member of our Ways and 
Means Committee, come and testify about this bill, about how we look at 
raising the debt limit. He spoke very passionately, and there was a lot 
of common sense involved about how do we look at this issue and how do 
we solve it.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Marchant).
  Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me 
and his support on this issue. Also, I thank him for allowing the Rules 
Committee to spend over an hour on this issue yesterday to hear both 
sides of this issue as far as the debt ceiling goes.
  Mr. Speaker, I can't go to a townhall meeting or even go to a 
gathering of just a few people without the subject of the debt ceiling 
coming up. My constituents on a regular basis, through emails, phone 
calls, and letters, ask me the questions: What is Congress doing

[[Page 1681]]

about addressing the debt ceiling? Why do you lurch from year to year 
to year about the debt ceiling? Why don't you ever look at the debt 
ceiling in a comprehensive manner?
  The debt is too high. When I introduced this bill in September, the 
debt had reached $18.1 trillion. Today, it is over $19 trillion. If the 
current law remains unchanged, the Congressional Budget Office predicts 
that the Federal debt held by the public will exceed 100 percent of our 
GDP in 25 years, and this is unsustainable.
  The window to get a handle on the Nation's debt is closing very 
quickly. We need to enact solutions to retire the debt before it is too 
late. That is what the Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act is 
all about.
  This bill creates a new debt limit framework that places greater 
attention on finding debt reduction solutions. It does so by injecting 
transparency, accountability, and timeliness into the debt limit 
process. The bill would allow Congress and the administration to take 
comprehensive assessments of the debt and its drivers well before the 
statutory debt limit is reached.
  Each year since I have been in Congress, I can pick up the newspaper 
one day and find that the Secretary of the Treasury announces that we 
have reached our statutory debt limit and usually proclaims a date. In 
this case, the statutory debt limit will be reached next March of 2017. 
At that point, everybody seems to go about their business. There is no 
particular action taken.
  In fact, last month after that proclamation was made that we had 
reached our statutory debt ceiling, 7 months went by without us 
reaching the debt ceiling. How did that happen? Well, it happened 
because the Secretary of the Treasury has the ability to implement 
extraordinary measures. Now, if any committees in the Congress should 
know what those extraordinary measures that he is using are going to be 
or are, it is the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance 
Committee.
  So this bill very simply lays out a framework where, before the debt 
ceiling is reached--and the Secretary of Treasury knows that--he has a 
framework of up to 60 days to come and appear before the Ways and Means 
Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, which could be a joint 
meeting, and lay out for us when the debt ceiling will be reached--not 
after we have reached the debt ceiling, but before we have reached the 
debt ceiling--what extraordinary measures he will take once we have 
reached that debt ceiling and when, in fact, he thinks we will actually 
run out of money.
  In that report, he will actually then lay out the administration's 
plan on addressing that debt in the short term, in the midterm, and in 
the future. So it is a very commonsense plan. It involves one very 
specific meeting with these two jurisdictional committees with the 
Secretary of the Treasury. The whole focal point of that meeting will 
be to talk about the debt ceiling. That does not happen now.
  We have dozens of reports that are online. We have dozens of 
discussions besides this, but never statutorily is the Secretary of the 
Treasury and the two jurisdictional committees required to meet and 
discuss this. This is the great thing about this bill, the 
implementation of this bill.
  Like so many Americans, my constituents have watched with great 
concern as the debt has skyrocketed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tipton). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. MARCHANT. If we share these concerns at all--and I know that many 
of us do--we need to pass the Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility 
Act.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Maybe I can clear all this up so we don't have to debate this bill.
  The gentleman asked a question about extraordinary measures that the 
Secretary of the Treasury could potentially use to deal with the debt 
ceiling. I would just tell him that they are defined in statute, and we 
will happily provide him a copy of the statute so that he can 
understand that.
  I would go back to what I said in my opening statement that, if we 
are serious about dealing with our deficit and our debt, then maybe we 
ought to be thinking in these terms, about actually not accumulating 
all these bills that get us to the point where we have to raise the 
debt ceiling.
  I mean, we in Congress--not the administration, but we in Congress--
accumulate all these bills and all these financial obligations. Once 
you do that, you have to pay for them. Our constituents, when they 
accumulate credit card debt, they have got to pay it. They just can't 
not pay it because they don't want to. So we have to start behaving 
like adults here and understand that we need to pay our bills.
  I would suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
one way we might want to save some money and not add it to the deficit 
or to our debt is to stop giving Donald Trump tax cuts that you don't 
pay for.

                              {time}  1345

  If you want to have tax cuts for wealthy individuals, fine. Pay for 
them. Don't not pay for them. Stop subsidizing big oil companies in 
this country.
  Maybe there was a time when we first started exploring for oil that 
you could make the case that taxpayers ought to be subsidizing oil 
companies. Not anymore. Not with global warming and certainly not when 
they are making zillions of dollars a year in profits. Maybe we could 
take that money and put it toward deficit reduction.
  Or maybe we could pay for these wars that everybody seems to want to 
commit our young men and women to. If you want to go to war, you ought 
to pay for it, not just put it on a credit card. If you are not 
prepared to do that, then end these wars.
  But just putting in danger the lives of our brave men and women and 
just accumulating all these massive bills that there is no 
accountability of I think is unconscionable.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I respect the motivation that underlies this 
bill. We have got a debt in this country that is too large, and we have 
got to address it, but this is a nonresponse.
  The job of addressing the debt belongs to Congress. It can't be 
outsourced. The Secretary of the Treasury has no more authority to 
address the debt than the Secretary of Agriculture or Education or the 
Democratic National Committee or the Republican Campaign Committee. 
This is a job that has to be done, but it is our job to do it.
  Asking the Secretary of the Treasury to come in and talk about when 
that date certain will be on default when we set that date when we pass 
budgets means that we are asking somebody else to do our job and asking 
somebody who actually doesn't even have the authority to do the job. 
That belongs to Congress.
  Every time we vote on either a tax cut or an appropriation bill, it 
has clear implications for how that will impact on the debt ceiling. It 
is debatable because there are fluctuations as to when we will hit that 
date.
  But it is absolutely certain that, when we appropriate money or we 
pass tax cuts, in one case spending will go up, and in the other case 
revenues will go down.
  What we have done is gone along in a kind of la-la land where we 
think we can cut taxes, we can raise spending, and then we are 
astonished when a year or so later there is actually a bill that comes 
due.
  This is not the debt management bill. It is not the fiscal 
responsibility bill. It is the debt mismanagement and fiscal 
irresponsibility bill.
  Think about the things that we have done. Mr. McGovern has been 
talking about it. But we had a war in Iraq, a trillion dollars. Nobody 
paid for that. We voted to spend a trillion dollars on tax cuts. We can 
have an argument

[[Page 1682]]

about tax policy. But you know what, revenues went down.
  Congress voted to spend $800 billion on the prescription drug 
program, something that had bipartisan support. Not paid for. And then 
just a few weeks ago we passed tax extenders that are going to reduce 
revenues by $2 trillion.
  Actions have consequences. The consequences are ones that are 
inevitable and foreseeable as a result of the actions of this Congress. 
This Congress, instead of assuming its responsibility, tries to 
outsource it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. WELCH. To someone else, it is a dodge. That is all it is. It is 
us trying to fool the American people with a game of three-card Monte 
where we are pretending that the problem that we are decrying had 
somehow mysteriously evolved out of nowhere.
  I respect the concern of the authors of this bill about our debt. 
What I don't respect is the failure of Congress to address it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the reason why we are doing this is 
because one day 2 years ago the President, through the Treasury, wrote 
off $339 billion in one day. That is not responsible. It didn't happen 
in one day.
  They play games at Treasury. The President of the United States plays 
games with this issue. Now it sounds like my colleagues are, also. This 
is an honest attempt to have a dialogue.
  Regardless of who is going to be President or whoever is going to be 
Treasury Secretary next year, we want to know what kind of games or 
what kind of straightforward business they are going to operate.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Butler, Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), one of the most exciting young 
Members of this Congress.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for referring to me 
as young and exciting. I am going to phone my wife to let her know that 
is the case.
  Mr. Speaker, I come before you today because I am in strong support 
of H.R. 3442. I think that sometimes we make this a Democratic versus 
Republican issue. Responsibility is not a political issue. It is a 
moral issue.
  Irresponsibility is the problem that we have. I wish we could go away 
from making political talking points into making solid policy positions 
that say: okay, fine, if we are going to increase our debt ceiling, 
tell me why you are going to get there.
  I come from the private sector. There are many times in my life I 
have had to go to lenders and tell them I need to borrow money. The 
first thing they would say is: give me your financials; let me look at 
the way you are running your company; let me see about what you are 
doing; then we will make a decision.
  Then they would come back to me and say: you know what, I am looking 
at what you are asking for, and you definitely need an injection of 
capital; but my question is what is your turnaround plan so you are not 
back here in 6 months or 12 months asking for more money on a failed 
model.
  The people's House, the Congress, is made up of both Republicans and 
Democrats. More importantly, it is made up of Americans. We are looking 
at a year when the tax revenues are the highest they have ever been--
$3.25 trillion--yet, we continue to spend $3.7 trillion to $3.8 
trillion.
  Now people look at that and their eyes kind of roll back in their 
head. They say: I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
  So you reduce it down to this, which I think is the most effective 
way of explaining it. Hardworking American couples sit down at the 
kitchen table. It is kitchen table economics. It is not all this other 
stuff. It is not all these hieroglyphics.
  The husband and the wife talk and say: you know what, Honey, we had a 
great year; I was able to bring home $32,500; what I want you to do is 
to go out and spend $37,500 or $38,000.
  They would look at each other and say: wait a minute, you told me you 
had a great year--and you did--but you want me to spend even more money 
than you brought in.
  We constantly tell the American people: you are going to have to 
tighten your belts; you are going to have to live within your means. 
And then, because we don't have to, we go out and borrow and raise the 
debt ceiling.
  Think about that couple that is increasing their debt load year after 
year after year--deficit spending--and we are crowing about the fact 
that you know what, we have cut our deficit spending by half a trillion 
dollars this year. Aren't we doing well?
  My question is: so where does that deficit spending go? It goes onto 
your long-term debt. You are digging the hole so deep that you will 
never be able to climb out of it, but you are feeling good about it 
because you were able to satisfy whatever your needs were at that 
moment.
  That is not only irresponsible, it is unconscionable. More than that, 
it is immoral for people to sit in this House as representatives of the 
American people who have been given the authority to tax, but they have 
also been given the responsibility to spend that hardworking American 
taxpayer's dollar.
  More importantly, once you have authority and once you have 
responsibility, you have got to be accountable not just to that person 
in the mirror, but, in my case, the 705,687 people that I represent in 
western Pennsylvania.
  Now, they are not all Republicans. They are not all Democrats. They 
are not all Libertarians. They are not all Independents. But they are 
all hardworking American taxpayers.
  Why do we have to reduce this down to a political-talking-points 
issue instead of talking about what is fundamentally sound 
economically?
  You cannot spend your way out of debt. You cannot continue to borrow 
irresponsibly and say: well, we have the power to do it. So when we ask 
the Secretary of the Treasury who else would you go to, that is who is 
responsible for it.
  I don't care who is sitting in there. I don't care who is in the 
White House. I care about sound, fundamental fiscal policy that 
protects this country going forward, not only those that are with us 
right now, but those that came before us and those that are going to 
come after us.
  We are putting ourselves in a position that is totally going to be 
unrecoverable. Why would we knowingly sit here and think if I can pin 
the blame on somebody else from the political opposite of me, I will 
somehow win an election?
  Is it really that important to win an election and lose the country? 
Is it really that important to have a political talking point that 
makes you feel good about what you said so you can go back home to 
somebody and say: you saw what I did on the floor; right?
  I would hope that the constituents would say: yes, I did. You just 
put me deeper in debt. You made it impossible for me to plan for my 
future. You made it impossible for us to remain one of the strongest 
countries in the world because debt will eliminate you. I don't care if 
it is a person. I don't care if it is a business. I don't care if it is 
a State or a country.
  We are quickly approaching the point of no return. To sit here and 
try to make it a political battle instead of survival for the United 
States of America is totally irresponsible. More importantly, it is 
immoral.
  This is not a political battle. This is a fight for the future of our 
country. This is a fight for sustainability in the greatest country the 
world has ever known.
  I do not think that any of us should ever turn our back on our 
responsibility because it just wasn't politically right.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say I have the greatest 
respect for my colleague from Pennsylvania, but the reason why we 
oppose this is because it does nothing.
  Actually, it attempts to pin the blame on the Secretary of the 
Treasury, but the reality is--and I want to repeat this for my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle--that Congress' decision on 
revenue and spending policies ultimately determine the level of

[[Page 1683]]

debt and when the debt limit is reached. It is our responsibility.
  What we object to is that, instead of debating concrete issues to 
reduce our deficit and reduce our debt, we are involved in this kind of 
debating a nonissue, a bill that does nothing, that will do nothing to 
reduce our deficit, reduce our debt, and is a complete waste of time.
  At this point, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Massachusetts 
for his leadership.
  I want to say to my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), whom I 
respect and admire, this isn't like a simple, homespun, sit around the 
kitchen table and work this out and be responsible in paying our bills. 
I wish it were.
  That homespun couple in Pennsylvania or my district in Virginia can't 
start a war that is unpaid for in Iraq, can't decide to give wealthy 
people a tax cut that is unpaid for, can't run the U.S. economy into 
the ground that costs trillions of dollars in additional debt because 
of policy choices made in this Congress, not by the Secretary of the 
Treasury.
  It was Republican Vice President Cheney who actually said in the 
midst of all of that that debts no longer matter.
  So we are glad to see the new-found religion here on the floor of the 
House with our friends on the other side of the aisle, who are now once 
again concerned about debt, debt they helped accumulate to an obscene 
degree.
  I rise, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to not only that bill, but to the 
Scientific Research in the National Interest Act bill.
  It comes as no surprise to my constituents in Virginia that the most 
anti-environmental Congress--the House majority is now attempting to 
tell the National Science Foundation how they ought to do and award 
Federal research grants based on what Congress deems worthy.
  The House majority has been open about its climate denialism and 
candid about its outright political agenda against scientific fact. The 
very scientific community that we should trust to understand and 
forecast the effects of manmade global climate change is substituted in 
this bill by the United States Congress, a bunch of politicians.
  This bill is a solution in search of a problem. It threatens the 
National Science Foundation's gold-standard merit-review process that 
has resulted in groundbreaking research over the years, including 
medical, technological, agricultural, and public health advancements.
  Even worse, how are we to explain the majority's decision to exclude 
climate change, one of the most pressing global challenges we face, as 
one of the bill's seven national interest criteria? It is not even in 
there.
  I offered an amendment that would have ensured climate change is 
deemed in the national interest. The Republican majority would not even 
allow that amendment to come to this floor for debate.
  The NSF is helping to lead research in global climate change. For 
example, it was an NSF grant that launched a program in my district at 
George Mason University that will help television weather forecasters 
better inform and explain to viewers how climate change will affect us 
and those communities.

                              {time}  1400

  In 2013, Mr. Speaker, I visited a place called Ny-Alesund in 
Svalbard, Norway. This is the northernmost research installation in the 
planet in the Arctic Circle and a leading research and monitoring 
station that serves many of our international partners, including 
Norway, Italy, Japan, China, and the Netherlands.
  I saw firsthand on that visit the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice and 
rapidly retreating glaciers. The research NSF funds there will have 
environmental and geopolitical benefits to the U.S., and we should be 
expanding not retracting on those commitments. I ask: How is it that 
research is not in the national interest?
  This destructive bill will have a chilling effect on our research 
community, stifling ambitious research necessary to a 21st century 
future.
  Sadly, once again, the Republican majority insists on misinformation 
and belief over empirical evidence and science.
  I urge rejection of the bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for 
yielding, and I appreciate the chairman of the Rules Committee bringing 
this rule to the floor to allow for consideration of H.R. 3293, the 
Scientific Research in the National Interest Act.
  H.R. 3293 requires each National Science Foundation public 
announcement of a grant award to be accompanied by a nontechnical 
explanation of the project's scientific merits and how it serves the 
national interest. This written justification affirms the National 
Science Foundation's determination that a project is worthy of taxpayer 
support based on scientific merit and national interest.
  The bill sets forth that NSF grants should meet at least one of seven 
criteria that demonstrate a grant is in fact in the national interest. 
These national interest areas are in the original enabling legislation 
that established the National Science Foundation and its mission or are 
part of the National Science Foundation mission today. These criteria 
are:
  Increased economic competitiveness in the United States;
  Advancement of the health and welfare of the American public;
  Development of an American STEM workforce that is globally 
competitive;
  Increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with 
science and technology in the United States;
  Increased partnerships between academia and industry in the United 
States;
  Support for the national defense of the United States; or,
  Promotion of the progress of science in the United States.
  These seven national mission areas encompass the overriding needs of 
America to which the scientific enterprise can contribute and advance. 
Under this umbrella, many scientific disciplines and research areas can 
and do receive support and flourish.
  The amendments that were not made in order by the Rules Committee 
would have opened up this NSF national mission statement to include 
every pet project, earmark, or political point that Members on the 
other side could think of. In fact, the explicit, line item-directed 
subjects that Members wanted to add to the list of ``what is in the 
national interest'' are already covered by one of the seven categories 
in the bill.
  We welcome a fair and open debate on the merits of the bill, and 
several amendments were made in order that allow us to have that 
debate. These include amendments by the ranking member of the House 
Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
Texas, as well as five other Democratic amendments.
  This rule allows us to have that fair debate, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Every criticism I have heard in the last few minutes about this bill 
could be addressed if those who oppose the bill just took the time to 
read the bill. It is only three pages long. You can probably read it in 
3 minutes. They would see that their opposition has no foundation 
whatsoever.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 8 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If 
we can defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up a bill that would help prevent mass shootings by 
promoting research on the causes of gun violence, making it easier to 
identify and treat those prone to committing these acts.

[[Page 1684]]

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I oppose both H.R. 3442 and H.R. 
3293.
  Again, on H.R. 3442, if we are serious about deficit and debt 
reduction, then we ought to be talking about substance and something 
real, not some sound bite where Members of the House can point to the 
administration to say it is all their fault.
  The reality is, it really is the fault of all of us, when you come 
down to it, because this is the place where spending decisions are 
made, where tax policy is made.
  If my colleagues do not want to raise the debt ceiling, then don't 
accumulate all these bills. It is Congress that does this. When you 
accumulate all these bills and you have to raise the debt ceiling, it 
is irresponsible to all of a sudden say that we don't want to do it and 
then to default on our debt.
  As I mentioned before, back in 2013, when Republican extremism 
actually shut the government down, it cost our economy $24 billion and 
120,000 jobs.
  Now, $24 billion may not seem like a lot to my Republican friends, 
but I assure you that it all starts to add up. Those 120,000 jobs that 
were lost is all lost revenue coming into the government which would go 
to paying down our deficit and debt.
  If you really want to deal with this issue, then let's talk about 
things like paying for these wars that no one seems to want to pay for. 
Let's talk about not enacting tax breaks and tax cuts for wealthy 
individuals and not paying for it. Let's talk about reeling in some of 
these excessive subsidies to Big Oil and to other big corporate 
interests in this country. Let's talk about passing comprehensive 
immigration reform, which, again, the CBO has said would save us 
hundreds of billions of dollars that we could put toward getting our 
fiscal house in order.
  Those are real things. This is just talk for the sake of talk. I 
guess maybe it is a good press release; but, quite frankly, I think our 
time would be better spent doing something else.
  Again, on H.R. 3293, the so-called Scientific Research in the 
National Interest Act, I take great exception to those who question the 
integrity of the NSF. The National Science Foundation has integrity, in 
my opinion, beyond question. The work that they do is extraordinary. 
The work that they do leads to all kinds of benefits not only for the 
people in this country, but for the environment and people all over the 
world.
  I think the scientists who work there are having their reputations 
questioned by the introduction of this legislation, never mind us even 
considering it here today. I think you are diminishing the incredible 
work that they do.
  I get it. For some reason, my Republican colleagues can't admit that 
we have a thing called climate change going on around the world. So any 
time anybody talks about climate change, you go after whatever 
department or agency it is. You attack them. You try to cut their 
funding. You try to question their integrity.
  Well, I hate to tell my Republican friends that climate change is 
real. The overwhelming science says it is real. If you don't appreciate 
that, maybe you ought to go back to school and take a science class.
  When we talk about the lack of accountability and the lack of proper 
stewardship of what we are supposed to be doing here, that is one area 
where I think we have let the American people down; indeed, the world 
community.
  We are sitting here debating whether it is even an issue--which the 
American people can't believe--while things continue to get worse.
  I would say to my Republican friends: admit it; climate change is for 
real. You are on the wrong side of public opinion. When you try to 
claim it is a hoax, you are on the wrong side of the scientific 
community and you are on the wrong side of history.
  One final thing, because I couldn't help but take note that my 
colleague from Texas kind of took a jab at Massachusetts over home 
heating oil. I would say to the gentleman a couple of things. One, 
Massachusetts is leading the Nation in terms of investments in 
renewable and green energy. I am really proud of what my State is 
doing.
  I would say one other thing to the gentleman from Texas, and that is 
that his State--Texas--generates 10 times more emissions from heating 
oil, compared to Massachusetts. So I would urge him to get his State's 
emissions under control for the sake of our planet.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The first thing I would like to say to the gentleman is that Texas is 
bigger than France and Texas is bigger than Massachusetts. In fact, we 
have economic output. We have lots of people working. We have economic 
prowess in Texas.
  We do have more output of what might be carbon. We do. We also had 
$290 billion worth of economic activity that we sent overseas. Texas 
helps the United States of America float its boat because we have jobs, 
we have lower taxes, we have great schools, we have people that enjoy 
living where they live, and we have people that take responsibility.
  Across the board, Texas is a great place to live. Texas does, as you 
have heard many times, move our country in a direction to more freedom, 
Mr. Speaker. What we are talking about is freedom. With that freedom 
comes responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, why we are here today--exactly as I started to say in 
the very beginning--is that our Speaker, Paul Ryan, has challenged I 
think all of Congress, but in particular this Republican majority, to 
bring forth good ideas that address the issues, thoughts, and answers 
about the problems that the United States Congress perhaps is 
responsible for and perhaps the United States sees that we need to 
start talking about what our future is going to be.
  When he was the chairman of the Budget Committee and the Ways and 
Means Committee, Speaker Ryan talked about growing our economy. I know 
our friends want to raise taxes. I know the President of the United 
States wants to also, now that the energy costs are down, stick them 
back up and stick the American people with a $10 a barrel tax. I know 
that what they want is more and more and more spending. They will get 
their chance with the budget when it comes in a trillion dollars higher 
in a year than what we are spending right now. That is their vision.
  What we are talking about today is our vision, Speaker Ryan's vision, 
and the Republican majority's vision. And what is that? We would like 
to put in place an agreement. We would like for it to be a bipartisan 
vote. We already have bipartisan support. And that is so that we could 
say that, regardless of who is President and Secretary of the 
Treasury--right now, I don't know who it is going to be; I really 
couldn't even guess--we, as a body, make sure that we are focusing on 
what this is going to look like at the time. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts was very clear to say we already know all these things, 
but we don't.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleague to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 609 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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. 
     3926) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
     better understanding of the epidemic of gun violence, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All

[[Page 1685]]

     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 Energy and 
     Commerce. 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3926.
                                  ____


        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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 609, if 
ordered; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 4470.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 180, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 65]

                               YEAS--237

     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
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     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)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     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
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     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, Michael F.
     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
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     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

[[Page 1686]]


     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     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--16

     Castro (TX)
     Duckworth
     Fincher
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Kelly (IL)
     Mullin
     Quigley
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1434

  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. McGOVERN. Mr. 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 236, 
noes 178, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 66]

                               AYES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     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
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     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)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     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
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--178

     Adams
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     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
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     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)
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     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--19

     Aguilar
     Castro (TX)
     DeLauro
     Duckworth
     Fincher
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Hanna
     Herrera Beutler
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Kelly (IL)
     LaMalfa
     Mullin
     Quigley
     Rothfus
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (WA)
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1440

  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 66, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________