[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11932-11939]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5063, STOP SETTLEMENT SLUSH FUNDS 
                              ACT OF 2016

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 843 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 843

       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. 5063) to limit donations made pursuant to 
     settlement agreements to which the United States is a party, 
     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. 
     It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in 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. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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.

                              {time}  1245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 843, 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 today to bring 
forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides 
for consideration of H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 
2016.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and also 
provides a motion to recommit.
  Additionally, the rule makes in order 7 of the 11 amendments 
submitted, representing ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from the chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform,

[[Page 11933]]

Commercial and Antitrust Law. Subcommittee hearings were held on both 
H.R. 5063 and on the topic of the Department of Justice's mortgage 
lending settlements with major lending banks. In May of this year, H.R. 
5063 was marked up and reported by the Judiciary Committee. The bill 
passed the Judiciary Committee after the consideration of several 
amendments. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act went through regular 
order and enjoyed thorough discussion at both the subcommittee and full 
committee level.
  H.R. 5063 is supported by the Institute for Legal Reform, Americans 
for Limited Government, and Americans for Tax Reform because it 
increases accountability for how settlement funds are spent and it 
helps to restore the balance of power between the branches of 
government.
  The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act was introduced after the nearly 
20-month investigation by the House Judiciary Committee found that the 
Department of Justice was systematically circumventing Congress and 
directing settlement money to activist groups. This bill will help 
address that problem.
  The power of the purse is one of Congress' greatest tools to rein in 
the executive branch and exercise oversight. It is no surprise, then, 
that this administration would want to find a way around that oversight 
and grow its authority. In fact, in the last 2 years alone, the 
Department of Justice has funneled non-victim third-party groups as 
much as $880 million.
  The Department of Justice does this by collecting money from parties 
who have broken the law and then use that money to create a slush fund, 
rather than sending the money to the victims of the illicit activity. 
The Department of Justice allows the ``donations''--if that is what 
they are called--required under the settlements to count as a double 
credit against defendants' payment obligations. Interestingly, credit 
for direct relief to consumers is only counted as dollar for dollar, 
indicating the importance the Department of Justice places on directing 
these funds to non-victim third-party groups.
  For example, the Department of Justice negotiated settlement 
agreements to the tune of millions of dollars with major banks for 
misleading investors over mortgage-backed securities, well within what 
they are supposed to do. Then the Department of Justice said that 
banks, or other parties it has settled with, could meet some of their 
settlement obligations by making donations to certain groups. The money 
goes to these groups partially under the guise that those groups would 
provide services to the aggrieved parties. In reality, this practice 
directs funds away from victims and allows the Department of Justice to 
steer money to non-victim third-party groups, usually administration 
friendly, politically motivated organizations.
  Additionally, the parties that receive these funds, these non-victim 
third-party organizations, aren't a part of the case, they don't 
represent the victims, and aren't subject to congressional oversight 
for the funds they receive. Even if most of these groups weren't 
activist groups, this would be a concerning scenario.
  The donations to third-party groups allow the Department of Justice 
to funnel money to friendly parties outside of the appropriations 
process and outside congressional approval. Many of these third-party 
groups are unquestionably political and certainly wouldn't be 
considered nonpartisan by mutual observers. In fact, the mortgage 
settlement cases, groups like the National Council of La Raza received 
more than $1 million in Department of Housing and Urban Development 
grants under the settlements.
  I don't know about you, but I think that when DOJ requires a 
settlement, the funds should go back to the victims involved in the 
case, including victims back home in northeast Georgia. And if the 
victims cannot be found or if the problem cannot be directly rectified, 
then the settlement funds should go on to the Treasury so that Congress 
can appropriately decide how to use them.
  I don't think it is acceptable to shortchange victims to benefit 
special interests and politically friendly third-party organizations, 
but that is exactly what the administration has been doing. The 
administration is trying to usurp the power of the purse through these 
settlement slush funds and has only gotten more confident that they can 
get away with it.
  Maybe even more troubling, despite repeated requests for more 
information, the Department of Justice is refusing to provide it. What 
little information has been provided indicates that groups that stood 
to gain from the mandatory donations actually lobbied DOJ to include 
them in settlements.
  Mr. Speaker, listen to what that says. Actually, one of the things 
that we have gained from this is the fact that the groups that stood to 
gain from these ``mandatory'' donations were lobbying DOJ to get the 
money--not a party to the case, not a party to the victims, but wanting 
their cut of the pie.
  In at least one case, the Department of Justice restored funding to a 
program that Congress specifically cut. Congress cut funding in half 
for a Housing and Urban Development program known as the Housing 
Counseling Assistance Program. But after grant recipients of this 
program expressed their displeasure at the cuts, they received a 
helping hand from who else--the Department of Justice.
  The DOJ mortgage settlements ensured that, despite congressional 
action to the contrary, eliminating funding for these groups would be 
restored. DOJ didn't just stop at circumventing Congress' funding 
authority in that case; instead, they directly violated the 
congressional intent. Again, a congressional oversight overstep misused 
because the agency decided it knew better than the elected 
representatives of the people.
  It is time to reassert congressional authority over this process so 
that hardworking folks are protected from more executive overreach and 
the separation of powers is restored. At a Judiciary hearing in May on 
this bill, Heritage Foundation scholar Paul Larkin testified that 
``Congress identifies precisely who may receive Federal funds.''
  That is what we do. I agree with him, but the Department of Justice's 
settlement process in recent years undercuts that critical function of 
the separation of powers. That is why we have to act and why the 
underlying bill is so important.
  The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act prohibits settlement terms that 
require donations to non-victim third parties. Importantly, the bill 
clarifies that payments that provide restitution for harm caused are 
not donations.
  Additionally, H.R. 5063 restores the separation of powers by 
establishing that settlement funds remaining after victims have been 
compensated are overseen by Congress. Rather than directing money 
outside the appropriations process, the bill returns the funds to the 
Treasury to remediate damages after victims have been taken care of.
  I urge everyone here today to think about their constituents who one 
day may be victims looking for restitution. I want to go home and tell 
those hardworking Georgians that I represent that I am making sure they 
are put first, not special interests. I hope that others will share 
that feeling by supporting the rule and the underlying bill.
  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 want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Collins), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this week, we return from 7 weeks away from the Capitol, 
the longest summer recess in modern times, and House Republicans 
continue to delay action on the most pressing issues facing our 
country, instead focusing on issues that benefit special interests, and 
issues, quite frankly, that are going nowhere.
  I had hoped that after we all spent some time with our constituents 
over the summer recess, the priorities of this Republican leadership 
would change to reflect what the American people actually care about, 
but they haven't. During our 252 days in session--which, by the way, 
includes 42

[[Page 11934]]

pro forma days where no legislative business was accomplished--we have 
voted on countless bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act, undermine 
financial protections put in place by Dodd-Frank, and weaken 
environmental protections. We are back on the floor this week to 
deregulate Wall Street, take away critical investor protections, and 
make it easier for those who break the law to get away without paying a 
financial price.
  Today's rule provides for the consideration of a bill that eliminates 
public interest protections, creates needless litigation and delay, and 
imposes draconian penalties on Federal officials. It is a misinformed 
response to a nonexistent problem, and just one more corporate giveaway 
by this Republican Congress. And, again, remember, it is going nowhere.
  This isn't leadership, Mr. Speaker. It is like a recurring nightmare. 
While spending time on efforts that are nothing more than sound bites 
from my friends on the other side of the aisle to use on the campaign 
trail, this Republican Congress has repeatedly ignored the calls of our 
constituents to act on issues they care about--issues that impact our 
communities, our neighborhoods, and our families.
  House Republicans continue to obstruct meaningful action on the 
greatest public health crisis impacting our country. Almost 17,000 
Americans, including nearly 1,600 pregnant women, are currently 
suffering from the Zika virus. This month, the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention will run out of resources to fight Zika. In the 
words of Dr. Thomas Frieden of the CDC, ``We need Congress to act.''
  For 7 months, President Obama and Democrats in Congress have urged 
the Republican leadership to take up and pass the administration's 
emergency supplemental request. But instead of considering a bipartisan 
Zika funding bill, the Republican leadership in this House has, once 
again, caved to the most extreme faction of their conference to produce 
an inadequate, partisan bill loaded with poison pill offsets.
  This is an emergency. We should treat it as such. But Republicans 
have spent months making excuses about why we don't need to provide the 
full funding that our Nation's public health experts say we need. We 
have had public health expert after public health expert tell us that 
we need to act, and yet my Republican friends think they know better. 
They have brought to the floor legislation to undermine the Clean Water 
Act under the guise of containing the Zika virus. They have even 
insisted on poison pill riders that continue the Republican assault on 
women's access to comprehensive health care, instead of bringing 
legislation that is focused solely on protecting American families from 
the terrible impacts of Zika.
  House Republicans have blocked the full emergency resources needed to 
combat the Zika virus seven times, and left town for a 53-day recess 
without committing a dime to address this growing public health crisis. 
It is shameful.
  In addition to shirking our responsibilities on the Zika virus, this 
Republican leadership has prevented action on other public health 
emergencies like the opiate crisis and the terrible tragedy in Flint, 
Michigan, and the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.
  Congress passed a bill to address the opiate crisis and it was an 
important step, but we must do more. We need to pass a strong piece of 
legislation that actually funds our fight against the opiate crisis and 
gives State and local partners the resources they need to help so many 
of our communities that have been hit hard by this epidemic. Passing a 
bill that has all these nice statements in it and nice goals and not 
funding it, well, that is just a press release, and that is about the 
extent of what this Congress has done to deal with this terrible opiate 
crisis.
  For 2 years, 100,000 people in Flint, Michigan, could not access safe 
water from their own faucets--100,000 people. For 2 years, hardworking 
Americans were denied the fundamental right of access to potable water. 
We are not talking about some tiny country halfway around the world. 
This has been happening right here in the United States of America.
  The Families of Flint Act, led by my friend and colleague, 
Congressman Dan Kildee, would help the people of Flint, Michigan, 
recover from this man-made disaster that they are still dealing with; 
but this Congress is too busy wasting its time to even consider 
bringing this vitally important, noncontroversial bill up for a vote.
  Where is the majority leadership on this? Why are they simply sitting 
back and allowing countless families in Flint to continue to be unable 
to turn on their faucets and receive the safe water that they need and, 
quite frankly, that should be a basic right in this country, the very 
same safe water that Speaker Ryan and so many of us take for granted?
  In fact, it was recently discovered that there were elevated levels 
of lead in the Cannon House Office Building. Congress has spared no 
expense in addressing that issue, yet has failed to give the Families 
of Flint Act a single vote or hearing even in this Chamber.

                              {time}  1300

  This Republican Congress has failed Flint by refusing to adequately 
fund our water infrastructure for years, and we are failing them again 
by not passing this commonsense legislation.
  While we have delayed action on a response to the Zika virus and to 
the crisis in Flint, Michigan, House Republicans have also refused to 
act on bipartisan, commonsense legislation to keep guns out of the 
hands of suspected terrorists and criminals. In fact, House Republicans 
have voted 24 times to block the no-fly, no-buy measure, which polls 
indicate is supported by 74 percent of our constituents. They have 
blocked debate on legislation to expand and strengthen background 
checks.
  If you go to a licensed gun dealer, you have to go through a 
background check, but if you go to a gun show or if you buy a gun 
online, you don't have to go through a background check. What sense 
does that make? Who could be against that? Yet they have voted time and 
time again to deny us the right to bring that to the floor. They have 
voted five times against lifting the 19-year-long ban on Federal 
research on gun violence. What is the Republican Congress so afraid of?
  We came back yesterday. I was looking through the press and was 
trying to figure out if, maybe, the Republican leadership in this House 
would actually do something about gun violence in order to protect the 
American people and to make sure that people who have a history of 
violent crime don't have access to guns or that people who are 
dangerously, mentally ill don't have access to guns. I thought, maybe, 
some of their constituents would kind of knock some common sense into 
their heads while they were on recess.
  But we come back, and what do we read? What is the Republican 
leadership's response to all of this?
  They want to bring a resolution to the floor to punish Democrats for 
having the audacity to raise our voices in protest over the fact that 
we cannot even get a vote on any of these bills that we think could 
save lives. They want to punish us; they want to sanction us; they want 
to condemn us because we said that, in the greatest deliberative body 
in the world, we ought to be able to deliberate.
  Apparently, the Republican leadership is outraged over what they say 
is a breach of decorum that shut down the Chamber for 25 hours because 
Democrats had a sit-in here in protest over the fact that we can't 
bring any legislation up for a debate. They are outraged over that. 
That is where their outrage is.
  My question is: Where is the outrage over the 50 innocent civilians 
who were killed in Orlando? Where is the outrage over the 14 people who 
were killed in San Bernardino or over the 9 people who were killed in a 
church in Charleston, South Carolina? Is there any outrage over that? 
Where is the outrage over the 27, mostly children, who were killed in 
Newtown, Connecticut, or over the 12 people who were killed in a movie 
theater in Aurora, Colorado, or the outrage over the 6 people who were 
killed in Tucson, Arizona, where our

[[Page 11935]]

former colleague, Gabby Giffords, was shot, or over the 32 people who 
were killed at Virginia Tech?
  Since my Republican friends have been in recess, over 4,000 Americans 
have been shot and killed in gun violence in this country--over 4,000. 
Where is the outrage? The only outrage that my Republican friends seem 
to have is over the fact that Democrats have had the audacity to raise 
this question about maybe we should do something, maybe we can do 
something to protect our constituents.
  I say to my colleagues: We don't need a slap on the wrist from the 
Republican leadership here. We need to reform our laws to ensure that 
guns are kept out of the wrong hands.
  Over 32,000 people in America die from gun violence each year--about 
89 people per day. If this isn't a public health emergency, Mr. 
Speaker, I don't know what is.
  But you come back, and this is what we are going to be debating on 
the House floor? Oh, my God. This is it? I mean the outrage, quite 
frankly, from the American people against the leadership of this House 
is over the fact that the Republican leaders have turned this place 
into a Congress in which trivial issues are debated passionately and 
important ones not at all. Enough. Let's do the people's business. We 
are not doing it today, and I hope that my colleagues will reconsider 
their agenda for the time we are back here and will actually do 
something meaningful.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me just clarify, Mr. Speaker, why we are here. This is a rule for 
H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. One clarification as to 
what was just mentioned is that this bill does not allow any company to 
get off the hook. They are going through the process, and they are 
paying their fines. What we are trying to let off the hook here is the 
Department of Justice, which believes that it is the arbitrator of the 
world to their own pet projects.
  Let's get back to the basics of this bill. If we want to pontificate 
on the world, fine, then we can pontificate on the world; but let's get 
back to the rule for today, for this moment, and do not tell stories 
that don't exist. Congress--both sides--should decide that the 
Department of Justice should not be having a settlement of mandatory 
donations to pet groups because they don't get enough funding. How 
about they just go get another job instead of living off settlements 
from others when they are not the victims?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just say to my friend from Georgia that 
I am not pontificating; I am just expressing frustration over the fact 
that we are not doing anything of any consequence here on the House 
floor. This legislation that we are dealing with today--in fact, the 
legislation that we are going to deal with later in the week--is going 
nowhere. Yet we have a Zika crisis; we have a crisis in Flint, 
Michigan; and we have a crisis of people who are dying from gun 
violence in this country. For some reason, the Republicans who run this 
House can't find the time to spend even 1 day talking about those 
things.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad you had a little reference here: don't allow 
companies or corporations to avoid their responsibilities. I want to 
speak to that issue. I think it is very, very, very critical.
  Mr. Speaker, let's not beat around the bush. We are on the floor 
today debating H.R. 5063 under the guise of ``ensuring 
responsibility.'' I mean, who would be against that? That is like apple 
pie. However, this bill is nothing more than a political exercise void 
of real reprimand for these practices, reforms to the system, or 
redress to actual victims. If that is what it did, I would be here 
supporting it.
  We have known for years of instances where deferred prosecution 
agreements have gotten out of hand. You don't remember those days? I 
will bring them back to you.
  When I tried to make modest reforms to improve the transparency of 
these agreements, I was rebuffed by Members on the other side of the 
aisle. They have short memories. They have selective memories. Where 
was this outrage when I was screaming about seven deferred prosecution 
agreements with large medical device companies that were negotiated by 
New Jersey's former United States Attorney Chris Christie? There is a 
name.
  One of the settlements allowed Bristol-Myers Squibb to avoid 
prosecution for securities fraud in exchange for a $5 million donation 
to Mr. Christie's law school alma mater; and I am listening to 
preaching over here and pontificating about what is going on today 
about these groups that are lined up to get their money from the 
Justice Department. I didn't hear one word--not one word. In fact, if 
the gentleman has a word to interject, I will hold on for 10 seconds 
and listen.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee has brought this issue up already. If the gentleman does not 
know this, he needs to go back, and he can see it. That is why this is 
a bipartisan issue. We can be together on this.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, in all of the 
settlements, Chris Christie appointed political allies and supporters 
as monitors to oversee corporate compliance, which the gentleman is 
talking about, which netted those allies tens of millions of dollars. 
These allies then served as major donors to a political campaign 
account.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Now, these arrangements were so problematic that they 
prompted the Department of Justice--we have selective memory--to issue 
a new guidance limiting prosecutors' discretion in reaching such 
agreements, and the Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing in 
2009.
  When Democrats tried to highlight the issue of using a public office 
to funnel large legal fees to cronies who then turned around and 
bankrolled campaigns, those on the other side said they did not see it 
for what it was--crony capitalism. They have heard the term before. 
Rather, they bent over backward to praise Mr. Christie and accused 
Democrats of grasping for ways to embarrass a ``rising Republican 
star.'' Now that time has passed and a different administration is in 
charge, we are now hearing a different story, but very real issues with 
these practices still remain.
  I agree that we need reforms, my friend from Georgia. I agree. I hope 
that my colleagues will take a look at the deferred prosecution 
agreements reform legislation that I, Mr. Pallone, and Mr. Cohen have 
introduced.
  The issue here is not the government forcing companies to use 
deferred prosecution agreements to potentially divert funds away from 
helping victims when it comes to corporate malfeasance. The more 
egregious issue is that firms have avoided prosecution to begin with. 
The little guy gets it in the neck, and the banks and the corporations 
are never held accountable. The other side knows. The gentleman, my 
friend, has opened up a can of worms here--and I mean that sincerely.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. PASCRELL. We are on a roll here.
  Mr. Speaker, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission made 
recommendations to the Department of Justice to criminally prosecute 
top executives at several large financial institutions, but we have yet 
to see a major Wall Street executive be criminally charged. That is 
criminal. You want to know what ``criminal'' is? That is criminal. So 
we

[[Page 11936]]

come here today, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  I don't question the motivations of the sponsor, by the way. That is 
not my motive. We learned in March that the Financial Crisis Inquiry 
Commission--I will repeat--recommended that the Department of Justice 
criminally prosecute. Nothing has been done. I have also written a 
letter to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. By the way, this is 
not partisan. Our own Justice Department hasn't done anything either.
  I am being fair about this, but they have to look into this. They 
can't come before us and tell us they are trying to save the little guy 
or the victims when they allow this and permit this to go on day in and 
day out when the banks never were held accountable. No one has ever 
been brought before a court. Eight years later, and we are here.
  Rather than wasting time on this fishing expedition, if the House 
really wants to ensure punishment is carried out and that the actual 
victims receive compensation, we need to actually address the root 
cause of the problem.
  Mr. Ranking Member, my friend from Georgia, we have to address the 
root problem.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey. I think the interesting 
thing is that I have listened to him--as he said, he is on a roll--and 
I think we are probably in more agreement than we are disagreeing here.
  I wasn't here to--in fact, you said to ``turn a blind eye.'' This is 
a problem, and it doesn't matter who is there. If it is a Republican, 
it is wrong; if it is a Democrat, it is wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is why 
we are here.
  I agree with the outrage. It shouldn't happen, especially when you 
get into the fact that the Department of Justice is actually taking 
money and putting money to departments and programs that this Congress 
had cut funding from. That is not right. I don't care who the 
administration is; I don't care who the President is.
  I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. He makes a passionate 
argument. Maybe you just need to come over here and help me out. We are 
making the right argument here.
  So the question now becomes--no matter where it comes from--and the 
interesting issue here is this shouldn't be taking place, no matter who 
is over it. The problem is, and what I would love to ask is: Where has 
the Department of Justice been for the last 7 years on any issue, for 
the most part? It has been very frustrating to both sides of the aisle. 
On this one, I actually think we can find more agreement than we can 
find disagreement.
  I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's remarks because, 
frankly, this is what this does. It doesn't let them off the hook. It 
just simply goes back to looking at these mandatory donations which, 
again, party is irrelevant. This is not a role for the Department of 
Justice.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins) how many more speakers he has who want to speak 
on this bill on his side? I know the demand has been really great.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, they have been pulling at my 
coattails, but I think at this time they are going to hold back.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, let me put this in perspective for everybody. We can 
have this conversation here and maybe people can do press releases 
after we have a vote on it, but I think we all know that this bill is 
going nowhere, and it is going nowhere fast. So we are essentially 
wasting our time, we are wasting taxpayer dollars, and we are doing so 
at a moment when we have some serious challenges and serious crises 
facing our country.
  I mentioned gun violence. My friends don't want to do anything about 
that; although, according to the press, they want to bring a resolution 
to slap our wrists. That is their outrage over all the gun violence 
that we have seen, the massacres that we have seen in this country. I 
find that stunning, quite frankly. I mean, it takes my breath away 
that, in the aftermath of all that has gone on, that that is the best 
they can do. Nonetheless, that is their solution, and it is another 
waste of time.
  We have a crisis in Flint, Michigan, where people still can't turn on 
their faucets. We are not talking about a country halfway around the 
world. We are talking about a community here in the United States of 
America where clean water ought to be a right, and yet we can't seem to 
schedule the time to do anything to help solve that problem.
  We passed a bill that had some good goals in it with regard to the 
opiate crisis that we are facing, but we haven't passed any funding for 
it yet. So people can go back home and say, ``Oh, we did something,'' 
but really they didn't, because a bill that sets out nice goals that 
doesn't have any funding really is nothing more than a press release. 
We are not talking about funding for any of those priorities to deal 
with the opiate crisis.
  Then there is the Zika crisis, which is getting worse and worse and 
worse, and yet we can't find the time this week to do anything about 
it. I find that appalling.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment 
to the rule to bring up legislation that fully funds the 
administration's efforts to mount a robust and long-term response to 
the growing Zika crisis.
  The administration requested funding 7 months ago, and the Republican 
majority has refused to consider legislation that would adequately 
address the seriousness of this situation. Due to Republican inaction, 
the administration has been forced to repurpose nearly $600 million 
dedicated to other pressing public health needs to stem the growing 
tide of this disaster. Guess what. That money is about to run out, and 
there are now nearly 17,000 cases of Zika in the United States and 
territories. As CDC Director Frieden said, ``The cupboard is bare.'' 
The time for half measures and political posturing has long since 
passed. The time to act is now.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I again appeal to the 
leadership of this House: Do something. Do something that will help 
somebody in this country.
  I get it. Elections are coming up, and everybody is engaged in 
political posturing. You know, we were elected to actually try to help 
people and help solve problems.
  I have to tell you, by any objective measure, the leadership of this 
House has failed. I mean, it has failed on Flint. It has failed on the 
Zika crisis. It has failed on gun violence. It has failed on 
confronting this opiate crisis. I can go on and on and on again. I can 
point to 70-plus times that we voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. 
All of these messaging bills that were written in the basement of the 
Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, I guess you go back home 
and brag about those things, but at the end of the day, you haven't 
done anything.
  I hope that in these few weeks that we are back before we recess 
again that maybe some common sense can prevail on the Republican side 
and we can actually do something, something that will help all of our 
constituents, especially with this Zika crisis. This is a crisis. If 
that doesn't compel everybody to do something to provide the funding 
necessary to combat it, I mean, given what we have seen, then I don't 
know what will move my Republican colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the 
previous question, and then vote ``no'' on this rule to consider a bill 
that, quite frankly, is

[[Page 11937]]

going nowhere and is a waste of our time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  It is fairly amazing to me that we can actually find agreement, that 
we agree that this should not be happening. The gentleman from 
Massachusetts made this statement several times, and he said ``this 
bill is going nowhere.'' I would just ask him, Mr. Speaker, why not? If 
we want to find agreement and move forward, then, why not?
  Why wouldn't a bill brought forward by this Congress that addresses a 
bipartisan issue of Republican and Democrat abuses to a Department of 
Justice settlement program, why shouldn't it move forward? Instead of 
saying it is a waste of time, instead of saying it is something we are 
just doing to get along and to not address real issues, this is a real 
issue. Why don't we move it forward? Instead, we will posture. We will 
vote ``no,'' and we will complain about what we don't want to have. Why 
not move it forward?
  We have heard from my friends across the aisle, the ones who came, 
two witnesses, that we agree on this. It should not be happening. 
Instead, this is a big issue. In fact, I believe it is the one issue 
right now that is percolating not only in our Presidential elections, 
but in our congressional elections. It is in our Senatorial elections. 
It is in our State elections.
  It is this understanding of the American people that right now 
government is not working. Government is broken, the government that 
they grew up going to school with. As school has started back over the 
last month in Georgia--my home State, Mr. Speaker, and yours--up to New 
York where it starts tomorrow, they go to social studies and they learn 
about the Founders and they learn about the Constitution and they learn 
about three branches of government and how Congress does the bills and 
the appropriating and how the executive branch carries those 
instructions out and how the judiciary comports that to the 
constitutionality of what we do.
  I cannot think of a better way than to live within those Founders' 
framework and to say, ``Why isn't this bill going somewhere?'' instead 
of Congress sitting back and letting the executive branch do whatever 
it wants to do, however it wants to do it just because they throw a 
tantrum because they don't get their way.
  The bill does not protect people from getting away from the law. The 
bill does not keep people from being prosecuted. The bill does not keep 
punitive damages. Just go through the long list of what they have said, 
the list of horribles, that this would not do. It does not. It simply 
says you can't stroke your pet projects with money from ``mandatory 
donations,'' either side, Republican or Democrat.
  So tell me again, Mr. Speaker, why shouldn't this bill go forward? We 
will have time to debate the rest. Well, why shouldn't this bill go 
forward? Because it hits at the very frustration of the American people 
right now because what they see is not what they learned in those 
classrooms years ago. What they see is an executive branch that does 
whatever it wants to do, sometimes under both parties. They see a 
Congress that doesn't stand up for itself.
  As far as I am concerned, this Member will stand up for this 
institution and for the role that the Founders laid out for us. So H.R. 
5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, does what it says it will 
do, and I am proud to cosponsor this bill.
  There are many things we get a chance to vote for. We can complain or 
we can vote. My recommendation is vote to move this forward. Vote 
``yes'' on this rule. Vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. Instead of 
saying it ain't going anywhere, then grab a hold of the shovel and say 
let's try and make something work in this country.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 843 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. 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. 
     5044) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2016 
     to respond to Zika virus. 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 among 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Appropriations and the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Budget. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 5044.
                                  ____


        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.

[[Page 11938]]

  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 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 177, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 481]

                               YEAS--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     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
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     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
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--177

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     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
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     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
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     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--23

     Bishop (UT)
     Boustany
     Brown (FL)
     Calvert
     Clawson (FL)
     DesJarlais
     Duckworth
     Gohmert
     Graves (LA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     McKinley
     Nugent
     Palazzo
     Price (NC)
     Reichert
     Ross
     Rush
     Russell
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sinema
     Valadao

                              {time}  1346

  Mr. MOULTON, Mrs. DINGELL, and Mr. ELLISON changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 481, I was 
detained discussing flood recovery efforts in Louisiana. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 481 I missed the vote 
because my meeting with constituents about very important 
transportation, agriculture, air quality, and grant issues went longer 
than scheduled. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall Vote No. 481 on 
the previous question, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yea'' when I 
should have voted ``nay.''

                              {time}  1345

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Graves of Louisiana was allowed to speak 
out of order.)


           Moment of Silence for Victims of Louisiana Floods

  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 weeks, many 
across our Nation have been preparing the children for school. They 
have been preparing to end their summer vacation.
  In our home State of Louisiana, nearly 500,000 of our citizens have 
been affected by a 1,000-year flood event, causing extraordinary ruin 
for our families and businesses, everything inundated. Everything that 
people own--family heirlooms, photo albums, hard disk drives, and 
generations of work--has been destroyed. We lost 13 of our fellow 
citizens, at least, with more perhaps to be found.
  Today, hundreds of thousands across south Louisiana are sifting 
through what remains of their belongings, facing imminent and 
extraordinary financial decisions and life-altering decisions. We stand 
here in this Chamber today, as their representatives, and ask you to 
join us in a moment of silence and to keep them in our prayers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will stand for a moment of silence.
  Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  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 will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 178, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 482]

                               AYES--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)

[[Page 11939]]


     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     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
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     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
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--178

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     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
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     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
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Barletta
     Boustany
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Clawson (FL)
     DesJarlais
     Duckworth
     Hurt (VA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Lieu, Ted
     McKinley
     Nugent
     Palazzo
     Price (NC)
     Reichert
     Rooney (FL)
     Ross
     Rush
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sinema
     Waters, Maxine


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1355

  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. ROONEY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 482, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 482, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall 
Vote No. 482 On Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for consideration 
of H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________