[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 36-58]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           RULES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 5

       Resolved, That the Rules of the House of Representatives of 
     the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, including applicable 
     provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted 
     rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Fourteenth 
     Congress, are adopted as the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, with 
     amendments to the standing rules as provided in section 2, 
     and with other orders as provided in sections 3, 4, and 5.

     SEC. 2. CHANGES TO THE STANDING RULES.

       (a) Decorum.--
       (1) In clause 3 of rule II, add the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(g)(1) The Sergeant-at-Arms is authorized and directed to 
     impose a fine against a Member, Delegate, or the Resident 
     Commissioner for the use of an electronic device for still 
     photography or for audio or visual recording or broadcasting 
     in contravention of clause 5 of rule XVII and any applicable 
     Speaker's announced policy on electronic devices.
       ``(2) A fine imposed pursuant to this paragraph shall be 
     $500 for a first offense and $2,500 for any subsequent 
     offense.
       ``(3)(A) The Sergeant-at-Arms shall promptly notify the 
     Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner, the Speaker, 
     the Chief Administrative Officer, and the Committee on Ethics 
     of any such fine.
       ``(B) Such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may 
     appeal the fine in writing to the Committee on Ethics not 
     later than 30 calendar days or five legislative days, 
     whichever is later, after notification pursuant to 
     subdivision (A).
       ``(C) Upon receipt of an appeal pursuant to subdivision 
     (B), the Committee on Ethics shall have 30 calendar days or 
     five legislative days, whichever is later, to either dismiss 
     the fine or allow it to proceed. Upon a determination 
     regarding the appeal or if no appeal has been filed at the 
     expiration of the period specified in subdivision (B), the 
     chair of the Committee on Ethics shall promptly notify the 
     Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner, the Speaker 
     and the Chief Administrative Officer. The Speaker shall 
     promptly lay such notification before the House.
       ``(4) The Sergeant-at-Arms and the Committee on Ethics are 
     authorized to establish policies and procedures for the 
     implementation of this paragraph.''.
       (2) In clause 4 of rule II, add the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(d)(1) Upon notification from the chair of the Committee 
     on Ethics pursuant to clause 3(g)(3)(C), the Chief 
     Administrative Officer shall deduct the amount of any fine 
     levied under clause 3(g) from the net salary otherwise due 
     the Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner.
       ``(2) The Chief Administrative Officer is authorized to 
     establish policies and procedures for such salary 
     deductions.''.
       (3) Rule XVII is amended by redesignating clause 9 as 
     clause 10, and by inserting after clause 8 the following new 
     clause:

     ``Legislative Proceedings

       ``9.(a) A Member, Delegate, the Resident Commissioner, 
     officer, or employee of the House may not engage in 
     disorderly or disruptive conduct in the Chamber, including--
       ``(1) intentionally obstructing or impeding the passage of 
     others in the Chamber;
       ``(2) the use of an exhibit to impede, disrupt, or disturb 
     the proceedings of the House; and
       ``(3) the denial of legislative instruments to others 
     seeking to engage in legislative proceedings.
       ``(b) This clause establishes a standard of conduct within 
     the meaning of clause 3(a)(2) of rule XI.''.
       (b) Authorization and Oversight Plans.--
       (1) Clause 2(d) of rule X is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d)(1) Not later than February 15 of the first session of 
     a Congress, each standing committee (other than the Committee 
     on Appropriations, the Committee on Ethics, and the Committee 
     on Rules) shall, in a meeting that is open to the public, 
     adopt its authorization and oversight plan for that Congress. 
     Such plan shall be submitted simultaneously to the Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform, the Committee on House 
     Administration, and the Committee on Appropriations.
       ``(2) Each such plan shall include, with respect to 
     programs and agencies within the committee's jurisdiction, 
     and to the maximum extent practicable--
       ``(A) a list of such programs or agencies with lapsed 
     authorizations that received funding in the prior fiscal year 
     or, in the case of a program or agency with a permanent 
     authorization, which has not been subject to a comprehensive 
     review by the committee in the prior three Congresses;
       ``(B) a description of each such program or agency to be 
     authorized in the current Congress;
       ``(C) a description of each such program or agency to be 
     authorized in the next Congress, if applicable;
       ``(D) a description of any oversight to support the 
     authorization of each such program or agency in the current 
     Congress; and
       ``(E) recommendations for changes to existing law for 
     moving such programs or agencies from mandatory funding to 
     discretionary appropriations, where appropriate.
       ``(3) Each such plan may include, with respect to the 
     programs and agencies within the committee's jurisdiction--
       ``(A) recommendations for the consolidation or termination 
     of such programs or agencies that are duplicative, 
     unnecessary, or inconsistent with the appropriate roles and 
     responsibilities of the Federal Government;
       ``(B) recommendations for changes to existing law related 
     to Federal rules, regulations, statutes, and court decisions 
     affecting such programs and agencies that are inconsistent 
     with the authorities of the Congress under Article I of the 
     Constitution; and
       ``(C) a description of such other oversight activities as 
     the committee may consider necessary.
       ``(4) In the development of such plan, the chair of each 
     committee shall coordinate with other committees of 
     jurisdiction to ensure that programs and agencies are subject 
     to routine, comprehensive authorization efforts.
       ``(5) Not later than March 31 in the first session of a 
     Congress, after consultation with the Speaker, the Majority 
     Leader, and the Minority Leader, the Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform shall report to the House the 
     authorization and oversight plans submitted by committees 
     together with any recommendations that it, or the House 
     leadership group described above, may make to ensure the most 
     effective coordination of authorization and oversight plans 
     and otherwise to achieve the objectives of this clause.''.
       (2) In clause 1(d)(2)(B) of rule XI, insert ``authorization 
     and'' before ``oversight''.
       (3) In clause 1(d)(2)(C) of rule XI, insert ``authorization 
     and'' before ``oversight''.

[[Page 37]]

       (c) Amendments to Appropriation Bills.--In clause 2 of rule 
     XXI, add the following new paragraph:
       ``(g) An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall 
     not be in order if proposing a net increase in the level of 
     budget authority in the bill.''.
       (d) Duplication of Federal Programs.--In clause 3(c) of 
     rule XIII, add the following new subparagraph:
       ``(5) On a bill or joint resolution that establishes or 
     reauthorizes a Federal program, a statement indicating 
     whether any such program is known to be duplicative of 
     another such program, including at a minimum an explanation 
     of whether any such program was included in a report to 
     Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 or 
     whether the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
     Assistance (published pursuant to section 6104 of title 31, 
     United States Code) identified other programs related to the 
     program established or reauthorized by the measure.''.
       (e) Recognition of Members.--
       (1) In clause 6 of rule I, strike ``The Speaker shall rise 
     to put a question but may state it sitting.''.
       (2) In clause 6(d) of rule XIII, strike ``rises'' and 
     insert ``seeks recognition''.
       (3) In clause 1(a) of rule XVII, strike ``rise and''.
       (4) In clause 2 of rule XVII, strike ``rise at once'' and 
     insert ``seek recognition''.
       (5) In clause 5 of rule XVII, strike ``walk out of or 
     across'' and insert ``exit or cross''.
       (6) In clause 1(a) of rule XX, strike ``from their seats 
     to'' and insert ``or otherwise indicate from their seats 
     and''.
       (f) Convening Outside the Hall of the House.--In clause 
     12(d) of rule I, strike ``whenever'' and insert ``if''.
       (g) Temporary Presiding Authority Clarification.--In clause 
     2(a) of rule II, insert ``and in the absence of a Member 
     acting as Speaker pro tempore pursuant to clause 8(b)(3)(A) 
     of rule I,'' after ``tempore,''.
       (h) Continuing Litigation Authorities.--In clause 8 of rule 
     II, add the following new paragraph:
       ``(c) The House, the Speaker, a committee or the chair of a 
     committee authorized during a prior Congress to act in a 
     litigation matter is authorized to act as the successor in 
     interest to the House, the Speaker, such committee or the 
     chair of such committee of a prior Congress, respectively, 
     with respect to such litigation matter, and to take such 
     steps as may be appropriate to ensure continuation of such 
     litigation matter.''.
       (i) Clarifying Staff Access to the House Floor.--In clause 
     5 of rule IV, strike ``shall remain at the desk and''.
       (j) Member Records.--In clause 6 of rule VII--
       (1) redesignate paragraphs (a) and (b) as subparagraphs (1) 
     and (2);
       (2) designate the existing sentence as paragraph (a);
       (3) in paragraph (a) (as so designated), insert ``as 
     described in paragraph (b)'' after ``Resident Commissioner''; 
     and
       (4) add at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(b) Records created, generated, or received by the 
     congressional office of a Member, Delegate, or the Resident 
     Commissioner in the performance of official duties are 
     exclusively the personal property of the individual Member, 
     Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner and such Member, 
     Delegate, or Resident Commissioner has control over such 
     records.''.
       (k) Response to Subpoenas.--Amend rule VIII to read as 
     follows--

                              ``RULE VIII

                        ``Response to Subpoenas

       ``1.(a) When a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
     officer, or employee of the House is properly served with a 
     judicial subpoena or order, such Member, Delegate, Resident 
     Commissioner, officer, or employee shall comply, consistently 
     with the privileges and rights of the House, with the 
     judicial subpoena or order as hereinafter provided, unless 
     otherwise determined under this rule.
       ``(b) For purposes of this rule, `judicial subpoena or 
     order' means a judicial subpoena or judicial order directing 
     appearance as a witness relating to the official functions of 
     the House or for the production or disclosure of any document 
     relating to the official functions of the House.
       ``2.(a) Upon receipt of a properly served judicial subpoena 
     or order, a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
     or employee of the House shall promptly notify the Speaker in 
     writing of its receipt together with either:
       ``(1) a determination as to whether the issuance of the 
     judicial subpoena or order is a proper exercise of 
     jurisdiction by the court and is consistent with the 
     privileges and rights of the House; or
       ``(2) a statement that such Member, Delegate, Resident 
     Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House intends to 
     make a determination with respect to the matters described in 
     subparagraph (1).
       ``(b) The notification required by paragraph (a) shall 
     promptly be laid before the House by the Speaker.
       ``3.(a) Except as specified in paragraph (b) or otherwise 
     ordered by the House, upon notification to the House that a 
     judicial subpoena or order is a proper exercise of 
     jurisdiction by the court and is consistent with the 
     privileges and rights of the House, the Member, Delegate, 
     Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House 
     shall comply with the judicial subpoena or order by supplying 
     copies.
       ``(b) Under no circumstances may minutes or transcripts of 
     executive sessions, or evidence of witnesses in respect 
     thereto, be disclosed or copied. During a period of recess or 
     adjournment of longer than three days, the Speaker may 
     authorize compliance or take such other action as the Speaker 
     considers appropriate under the circumstances. Upon the 
     reconvening of the House, all matters that transpired under 
     this clause shall promptly be laid before the House by the 
     Speaker.
       ``4. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to deprive, 
     condition, or waive the constitutional or legal privileges or 
     rights applicable or available at any time to a Member, 
     Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the 
     House, or of the House itself, or the right of such Member, 
     Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee, or of 
     the House itself, to assert such privileges or rights before 
     a court in the United States.''.
       (l) Requirements for Subcommittees.--Amend clause 5(d)(2) 
     of rule X to read as follows:
       ``(2)(A) A committee that maintains a subcommittee on 
     oversight may have not more than six subcommittees.
       ``(B) The Committee on Appropriations may have not more 
     than 13 subcommittees.
       ``(C) The Committee on Armed Services may have not more 
     than seven subcommittees.
       ``(D) The Committee on Foreign Affairs may have not more 
     than seven subcommittees.
       ``(E) The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform may 
     have not more than seven subcommittees.
       ``(F) The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     may have not more than six subcommittees.''.
       (m) Committee Hearings.--In clause 2(g)(2)(D) of rule XI, 
     insert ``, the Committee on Homeland Security'' after ``Armed 
     Services''.
       (n) Referrals to the Court of Claims.--
       (1) In clause 1(a)(1) of rule XIII--
       (A) insert ``or'' before ``releasing''; and
       (B) strike ``, or referring a claim to the Court of 
     Claims''; and
       (2) In clause 3 of rule XVIII--
       (A) insert ``or'' before ``releasing''; and
       (B) strike ``, or referring a claim to the Court of 
     Claims''.
       (o) Contents of Committee Reports Showing Changes to 
     Existing Law.--Clause 3(e)(1) of rule XIII is amended by 
     striking ``accompanying document--'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``accompanying document (showing by appropriate 
     typographical devices the omissions and insertions 
     proposed)--
       ``(A) the entire text of each section of a statute that is 
     proposed to be repealed; and
       ``(B) a comparative print of each amendment to the entire 
     text of a section of a statute that the bill or joint 
     resolution proposes to make.''.
       (p) Authority to Postpone Record Votes on Certain 
     Motions.--In clause 8(a)(2) of rule XX--
       (1) Redesignate subdivisions (E) through (H) as 
     subdivisions (G) through (J), respectively;
       (2) Insert after subdivision (D) the following new 
     subdivisions:
       ``(E) The question of adopting a motion to recommit.
       ``(F) The question of adopting a motion to concur in a 
     Senate amendment, with or without amendment.''; and
       (3) In subdivision (G) (as redesignated), strike 
     ``subdivision (A), (B), (C), or (D)'' and insert 
     ``subdivisions (A) through (F)''.
       (q) Conforming Guidelines for Five-Minute Voting.--In 
     clause 9 of rule XX--
       (1) In paragraph (a), insert ``or'' after the semicolon; 
     and
       (2) Strike paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert the following:
       ``(b) if in the discretion of the Speaker Members would be 
     afforded an adequate opportunity to vote--
       ``(1) on any question arising after a report from the 
     Committee of the Whole without debate or intervening motion; 
     or
       ``(2) on the question of adoption of a motion to recommit 
     (or ordering the previous question thereon) arising without 
     intervening motion or debate other than debate on the 
     motion.''.
       (r) Electronic Availability.--In clause 3 of rule XXIX, 
     strike ``in electronic form at a location designated by the 
     Committee on House Administration'' and insert ``at an 
     electronic document repository operated by the Clerk''.
       (s) Comparative Prints for Bills or Joint Resolutions 
     Considered on Floor.--Effective December 31, 2017, in rule 
     XXI, add at the end the following new clause:
       ``12.(a)(1) Before a bill or joint resolution proposing to 
     repeal or amend a statute or part thereof may be considered, 
     there shall be made available on a publicly available website 
     of the House an easily searchable electronic comparative 
     print that shows how the bill or joint resolution proposes to 
     change current law, showing (to the greatest

[[Page 38]]

     extent practicable) by appropriate typographical devices the 
     omissions and insertions proposed.
       ``(2) Before an amendment in the nature of a substitute may 
     be considered if the amendment proposes to repeal or amend a 
     statute or part thereof, there shall be made available on a 
     publicly available website of the House an easily searchable 
     electronic comparative print that shows (to the greatest 
     extent practicable) how the amendment proposes to change 
     current law, showing by appropriate typographical devices the 
     omissions and insertions proposed.
       ``(b) If a committee reports a bill or joint resolution, 
     before the bill or joint resolution may be considered with 
     text different from the text reported, there shall be made 
     available on a publicly available website of the House a 
     document that shows, by appropriate typographical devices, 
     the differences between the text of the bill or joint 
     resolution as proposed to be considered and the text of the 
     bill or joint resolution as reported.''.
       (t) Appointment of Chair.--Clause 1 of rule XVIII is 
     amended by inserting ``, Delegate, or the Resident 
     Commissioner'' after ``Member''.

     SEC. 3. SEPARATE ORDERS.

       (a) Holman Rule.--During the first session of the One 
     Hundred Fifteenth Congress, any reference in clause 2 of rule 
     XXI to a provision or amendment that retrenches expenditures 
     by a reduction of amounts of money covered by the bill shall 
     be construed as applying to any provision or amendment 
     (offered after the bill has been read for amendment) that 
     retrenches expenditures by--
       (1) the reduction of amounts of money in the bill;
       (2) the reduction of the number and salary of the officers 
     of the United States; or
       (3) the reduction of the compensation of any person paid 
     out of the Treasury of the United States.
       (b) Staff Deposition Authority.--
       (1) During the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, the chair of 
     a standing committee (other than the Committee on House 
     Administration or the Committee on Rules), and the chair of 
     the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, upon 
     consultation with the ranking minority member of such 
     committee, may order the taking of depositions, including 
     pursuant to subpoena, by a member or counsel of such 
     committee.
       (2) Depositions taken under the authority prescribed in 
     this subsection shall be subject to regulations issued by the 
     chair of the Committee on Rules and printed in the 
     Congressional Record.
       (3) At least one member of the committee shall be present 
     at each deposition taken under the authority prescribed in 
     this subsection, unless--
       (A) the witness to be deposed agrees in writing to waive 
     this requirement; or
       (B) the committee authorizes the taking of a specified 
     deposition without the presence of a member during a 
     specified period, provided that the House is not in session 
     on the day of the deposition.
       (c) Independent Payment Advisory Board.--Section 1899A(d) 
     of the Social Security Act shall not apply in the One Hundred 
     Fifteenth Congress.
       (d) Providing for Transparency With Respect to Memorials 
     Submitted Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the 
     United States.--With respect to any memorial presented under 
     clause 3 of rule XII purporting to be an application of the 
     legislature of a State calling for a convention for proposing 
     amendments to the Constitution of the United States pursuant 
     to Article V, or a rescission of any such prior application--
       (1) the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary shall, in 
     the case of such a memorial presented in the One Hundred 
     Fourteenth Congress or the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, 
     and may, in the case of such a memorial presented prior to 
     the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, designate any such 
     memorial for public availability by the Clerk; and
       (2) the Clerk shall make such memorials as are designated 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) publicly available in electronic 
     form, organized by State of origin and year of receipt, and 
     shall indicate whether the memorial was designated as an 
     application or a rescission.
       (e) Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations 
     Bills.--
       (1) During the reading of a general appropriation bill for 
     amendment in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union, it shall be in order to consider en bloc 
     amendments proposing only to transfer appropriations from an 
     object or objects in the bill to a spending reduction 
     account. When considered en bloc under this paragraph, such 
     amendments may amend portions of the bill not yet read for 
     amendment (following disposition of any points of order 
     against such portions) and are not subject to a demand for 
     division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
     the Whole.
       (2) Except as provided in paragraph (1), it shall not be in 
     order to consider an amendment to a spending reduction 
     account in the House or in the Committee of the Whole House 
     on the state of the Union.
       (3) A point of order under clause 2(b) of rule XXI shall 
     not apply to a spending reduction account.
       (4) A general appropriation bill may not be considered in 
     the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
     unless it includes a spending reduction account as the last 
     section of the bill. An order to report a general 
     appropriation bill to the House shall constitute authority 
     for the chair of the Committee on Appropriations to add such 
     a section to the bill or modify the figure contained therein.
       (5) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``spending 
     reduction account'' means an account in a general 
     appropriation bill that bears that caption and contains 
     only--
       (A) a recitation of the amount by which an applicable 
     allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of 
     new budget authority proposed by the bill; or
       (B) if no such allocation is in effect, ``$0''.
       (f) Point of Order Against Motion to Rise and Report.--
       (1) During the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, except as 
     provided in paragraph (3), a motion that the Committee of the 
     Whole rise and report a bill to the House shall not be in 
     order if the bill, as amended, exceeds an applicable 
     allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as estimated by the 
     Committee on the Budget.
       (2) If a point of order under paragraph (1) is sustained, 
     the Chair shall put the question: ``Shall the Committee of 
     the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted notwithstanding that the 
     bill exceeds its allocation of new budget authority under 
     section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?''. 
     Such question shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by a proponent of the question and an 
     opponent but shall be decided without intervening motion.
       (3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply--
       (A) to a motion offered under clause 2(d) of rule XXI; or
       (B) after disposition of a question under paragraph (2) on 
     a given bill.
       (4) If a question under paragraph (2) is decided in the 
     negative, no further amendment shall be in order except--
       (A) one proper amendment, which shall be debatable for 10 
     minutes 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; and
       (B) pro forma amendments, if offered by the chair or 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or 
     their designees, for the purpose of debate.
       (g) Limitation on Advance Appropriations.--
       (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any general 
     appropriation bill or bill or joint resolution continuing 
     appropriations, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, may not provide an advance appropriation.
       (2) An advance appropriation may be provided for programs, 
     projects, activities, or accounts identified in a list 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget (when elected) under the 
     heading--
       (A) ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in 
     an aggregate amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new 
     budget authority; and
       (B) ``Veterans Accounts Identified for Advance 
     Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed 
     $66,385,032,000 in new budget authority.
       (3) Definition.--The term ``advance appropriation'' means 
     any new discretionary budget authority provided in a general 
     appropriation bill or bill or joint resolution continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2017, or any amendment thereto 
     or conference report thereon, that first becomes available 
     for the fiscal year following fiscal year 2017.
       (h) Point of Order Against Increasing Direct Spending.--
       (1) Congressional budget office analysis of proposals.--The 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall, to the 
     extent practicable, prepare an estimate of whether a bill or 
     joint resolution reported by a committee (other than the 
     Committee on Appropriations), or amendment thereto or 
     conference report thereon, would cause, relative to current 
     law, a net increase in direct spending in excess of 
     $5,000,000,000 in any of the 4 consecutive 10-fiscal year 
     periods beginning with the first fiscal year that is 10 
     fiscal years after the current fiscal year.
       (2) Point of order.--It shall not be in order to consider 
     any bill or joint resolution reported by a committee, or 
     amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that would 
     cause a net increase in direct spending in excess of 
     $5,000,000,000 in any of the 4 consecutive 10-fiscal year 
     periods described in paragraph (1).
       (3) Determinations of budget levels.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the levels of net increases in direct spending 
     shall be determined on the basis of estimates provided by the 
     chair of the Committee on the Budget.
       (4) Limitation.--This subsection shall not apply to any 
     bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon--

[[Page 39]]

       (A) repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act and title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care 
     and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010;
       (B) reforming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability 
     Reconciliation Act of 2010; or
       (C) for which the chair of the Committee on the Budget has 
     made an adjustment to the allocations, levels, or limits 
     contained in the most recently adopted concurrent resolution 
     on the budget.
       (i) Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.--
       (1) The report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 
     shall include a list of directed rule makings required by the 
     measure or a statement that the proposition contains no 
     directed rule makings.
       (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``directed 
     rule making'' means a specific rule making within the meaning 
     of section 551 of title 5, United States Code, specifically 
     directed to be completed by a provision in the measure, but 
     does not include a grant of discretionary rule making 
     authority.
       (j) Exercise Facilities for Former Members.--During the One 
     Hundred Fifteenth Congress--
       (1) The House of Representatives may not provide access to 
     any exercise facility which is made available exclusively to 
     Members and former Members, officers and former officers of 
     the House of Representatives, and their spouses to any former 
     Member, former officer, or spouse who is a lobbyist 
     registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or any 
     successor statute or agent of a foreign principal as defined 
     in clause 5 of rule XXV. For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term ``Member'' includes a Delegate or Resident Commissioner 
     to the Congress.
       (2) The Committee on House Administration shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this subsection.
       (k) Numbering of Bills.--In the One Hundred Fifteenth 
     Congress, the first 10 numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 
     10) shall be reserved for assignment by the Speaker and the 
     second 10 numbers for bills (H.R. 11 through H.R. 20) shall 
     be reserved for assignment by the Minority Leader.
       (l) Inclusion of Citations for Proposed Repeals and 
     Amendments.--To the maximum extent practicable and consistent 
     with established drafting conventions, an instruction in a 
     bill or joint resolution proposing to repeal or amend any law 
     or part thereof not contained in a codified title of the 
     United States Code shall include, in parentheses immediately 
     following the designation of the matter proposed to be 
     repealed or amended, the applicable United States Code 
     citation (which may be a note in the United States Code), or, 
     if no such citation is available, an appropriate alternative 
     citation to the applicable law or part.
       (m) Broadening Availability of Legislative Documents in 
     Machine-Readable Formats.--The Committee on House 
     Administration, the Clerk, and other officers and officials 
     of the House shall continue efforts to broaden the 
     availability of legislative documents in machine readable 
     formats in the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress in furtherance 
     of the institutional priority of improving public 
     availability and use of legislative information produced by 
     the House and its committees.
       (n) Congressional Member Organization Transparency 
     Reform.--
       (1) Payment of salaries and expenses through account of 
     organization.--A Member of the House of Representatives and 
     an eligible Congressional Member Organization may enter into 
     an agreement under which--
       (A) an employee of the Member's office may carry out 
     official and representational duties of the Member by 
     assignment to the Organization; and
       (B) to the extent that the employee carries out such duties 
     under the agreement, the Member shall transfer the portion of 
     the Members' Representation Allowance of the Member which 
     would otherwise be used for the salary and related expenses 
     of the employee to a dedicated account in the House of 
     Representatives which is administered by the Organization, in 
     accordance with the regulations promulgated by the Committee 
     on House Administration under paragraph (2).
       (2) Regulations.--The Committee on House Administration 
     (hereafter referred to in this subsection as the 
     ``Committee'') shall promulgate regulations as follows:
       (A) Use of mra.--Pursuant to the authority of section 
     101(d) of the House of Representatives Administrative Reform 
     Technical Corrections Act (2 U.S.C. 5341(d)), the Committee 
     shall prescribe regulations to provide that an eligible 
     Congressional Member Organization may use the amounts 
     transferred to the Organization's dedicated account under 
     paragraph (1)(B) for the same purposes for which a Member of 
     the House of Representatives may use the Members' 
     Representational Allowance, except that the Organization may 
     not use such amounts for franked mail, official travel, or 
     leases of space or vehicles.
       (B) Maintenance of limitations on number of shared 
     employees.--Pursuant to the authority of section 104(d) of 
     the House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical 
     Corrections Act (2 U.S.C. 5321(d)), the Committee shall 
     prescribe regulations to provide that an employee of the 
     office of a Member of the House of Representatives who is 
     covered by an agreement entered into under paragraph (1) 
     between the Member and an eligible Congressional Member 
     Organization shall be considered a shared employee of the 
     Member's office and the Organization for purposes of such 
     section, and shall include in such regulations appropriate 
     accounting standards to ensure that a Member of the House of 
     Representatives who enters into an agreement with such an 
     Organization under paragraph (1) does not employ more 
     employees than the Member is authorized to employ under such 
     section.
       (C) Participation in student loan repayment program.--
     Pursuant to the authority of section 105(b) of the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2003 (2 U.S.C. 
     4536(b)), relating to the student loan repayment program for 
     employees of the House, the Committee shall promulgate 
     regulations to provide that, in the case of an employee who 
     is covered by an agreement entered into under paragraph (1) 
     between a Member of the House of Representatives and an 
     eligible Congressional Member Organization and who 
     participates in such program while carrying out duties under 
     the agreement--
       (i) any funds made available for making payments under the 
     program with respect to the employee shall be transferred to 
     the Organization's dedicated account under paragraph (1)(B); 
     and
       (ii) the Organization shall use the funds to repay a 
     student loan taken out by the employee, under the same terms 
     and conditions which would apply under the program if the 
     Organization were the employing office of the employee.
       (D) Access to house services.--The Committee shall 
     prescribe regulations to ensure that an eligible 
     Congressional Member Organization has appropriate access to 
     services of the House.
       (E) Other regulations.--The Committee shall promulgate such 
     other regulations as may be appropriate to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (3) Eligible congressional member organization defined.--In 
     this subsection, the term ``eligible Congressional Member 
     Organization'' means, with respect to the One Hundred 
     Fifteenth Congress, an organization meeting each of the 
     following requirements:
       (A) The organization is registered as a Congressional 
     Member Organization with the Committee on House 
     Administration.
       (B) The organization designates a single Member of the 
     House of Representatives to be responsible for the 
     administration of the organization, including the 
     administration of the account administered under paragraph 
     (1)(B), and includes the identification of such Member with 
     the statement of organization that the organization files and 
     maintains with the Committee on House Administration.
       (C) At least 3 employees of the House are assigned to work 
     for the organization.
       (D) During the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, at least 30 
     Members of the House of Representatives used a portion of the 
     Members' Representational Allowance of the Member for the 
     salary and related expenses of an employee who was a shared 
     employee of the Member's office and the organization.
       (E) The organization files a statement with the Committee 
     on House Administration and the Chief Administrative Officer 
     of the House of Representatives certifying that it will 
     administer an account in accordance with paragraph (1)(B).
       (o) Social Security Solvency.--
       (1) Point of order.--During the One Hundred Fifteenth 
     Congress, it shall not be in order to consider a bill or 
     joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or conference 
     report thereon, that reduces the actuarial balance by at 
     least .01 percent of the present value of future taxable 
     payroll of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund established under section 201(a) of the Social Security 
     Act for the 75-year period utilized in the most recent annual 
     report of the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 
     201(c)(2) of the Social Security Act.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a measure 
     that would improve the actuarial balance of the combined 
     balance in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust 
     Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for the 
     75-year period utilized in the most recent annual report of 
     the Board of Trustees provided pursuant to section 201(c)(2) 
     of the Social Security Act.
       (p) Subcommittees.--Notwithstanding clause 5(d) of rule X, 
     during the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress the Committee on 
     Agriculture may have not more than six subcommittees.
       (q) Treatment of Conveyances of Federal Land.--
       (1) In general.--In the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, for 
     all purposes in the House, a provision in a bill or joint 
     resolution, or in an amendment thereto or a conference report 
     thereon, requiring or authorizing a conveyance of Federal 
     land to a State, local government, or tribal entity shall not 
     be considered as providing new

[[Page 40]]

     budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory 
     spending, or increasing outlays.
       (2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (A) The term ``conveyance'' means any method, including 
     sale, donation, or exchange, by which all or any portion of 
     the right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     Federal land is transferred to another entity.
       (B) The term ``Federal land'' means any land owned by the 
     United States, including the surface estate, the subsurface 
     estate, or any improvements thereon.
       (C) The term ``State'' means any of the several States, the 
     District of Columbia, or a territory (including a possession) 
     of the United States.

     SEC. 4. COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND HOUSE OFFICES.

       (a) House Democracy Partnership.--House Resolution 24, One 
     Hundred Tenth Congress, shall apply in the One Hundred 
     Fifteenth Congress in the same manner as such resolution 
     applied in the One Hundred Tenth Congress except that the 
     commission concerned shall be known as the House Democracy 
     Partnership.
       (b) Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.--Sections 1 through 
     7 of House Resolution 1451, One Hundred Tenth Congress, shall 
     apply in the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress in the same 
     manner as such provisions applied in the One Hundred Tenth 
     Congress, except that--
       (1) the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission may, in addition 
     to collaborating closely with other professional staff 
     members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, collaborate 
     closely with professional staff members of other relevant 
     committees; and
       (2) the resources of the Committee on Foreign Affairs which 
     the Commission may use shall include all resources which the 
     Committee is authorized to obtain from other offices of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (c) Office of Congressional Ethics.--Section 1 of House 
     Resolution 895, One Hundred Tenth Congress, shall apply in 
     the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress in the same manner as such 
     provision applied in the One Hundred Tenth Congress, except 
     that--
       (1) the Office of Congressional Ethics shall be treated as 
     a standing committee of the House for purposes of section 
     202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
     U.S.C. 4301(i));
       (2) references to the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct shall be construed as references to the Committee on 
     Ethics;
       (3) any requirement for concurrence in section 1(b)(1) 
     shall be construed as a requirement for consultation;
       (4) the second sentence of section 1(b)(6)(A) shall not 
     apply;
       (5) members subject to section 1(b)(6)(B) may be 
     reappointed for a third additional term;
       (6) any individual who is the subject of a preliminary 
     review or second-phase review by the board shall be informed 
     of the right to be represented by counsel and invoking that 
     right should not be held negatively against them; and
       (7) the Office may not take any action that would deny any 
     person any right or protection provided under the 
     Constitution of the United States.

     SEC. 5. ORDERS OF BUSINESS.

       (a) The Speaker may recognize a Member for the reading of 
     the Constitution on any legislative day through January 13, 
     2017.
       (b) Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 21) to amend chapter 
     8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en bloc 
     consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight 
     rules'', and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  Mr. McCARTHY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the resolution be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


                            Motion to Refer

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion that is at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Norton moves to refer the resolution to a select 
     committee of five members, to be appointed by the Speaker, 
     not more than three of whom shall be from the same political 
     party, with instructions not to report back the same until it 
     has conducted a full and complete study of, and made a 
     determination on, whether there is any reason to deny 
     Delegates, in particular the Delegate from the District of 
     Columbia, whose residents pay the highest per capita federal 
     income taxes in the United States to support the federal 
     government, the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union in light of the decision of 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit in Michel v. Anderson (14 F.3d 623 (D.C. 
     Cir. 1994)) upholding the constitutionality of such right to 
     vote, and the inclusion of such right to vote in the Rules 
     for the 103rd, 110th and 111th Congresses.


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to table at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to table.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. McCarthy moves to lay on the table the motion to refer.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 184, not voting 21, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 3]

                               YEAS--228

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--184

     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi

[[Page 41]]


     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hastings
     Heck
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Adams
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Fudge
     Gowdy
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Higgins (NY)
     Issa
     Jones
     King (IA)
     Lynch
     Marchant
     Mulvaney
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Young (AK)
     Zinke

                              {time}  1504

  Mr. GARAMENDI and Mrs. DAVIS of California changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to table 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. RENACCI. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 3.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
allocated to me be controlled by the esteemed gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
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 also include in the Record a section-by-
section analysis of the resolution.

                               H. Res. 5

               Adopting the Rules for the 115th Congress

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

     Section 1. Resolved Clause.
       This section provides that the Rules of the 114th Congress 
     are the Rules of the 115th Congress, except for the 
     amendments contained in section 2 of the resolution and 
     orders contained in sections 3, 4, and 5.
     Section 2. Changes to the Standing Rules.
       Decorum. Subsection (a) authorizes the Sergeant-at-Arms to 
     impose a fine against a Member, Delegate, or the Resident 
     Commissioner for the use of an electronic device for 
     photography, audio or visual recording, or broadcasting on 
     the House floor in contravention of clause 5 of rule XVII and 
     any applicable Speaker's announced policy on electronic 
     devices. A fine for a first offense will be $500 and $2,500 
     for subsequent offenses. Any subsequent offense will be 
     assessed at the higher amount, regardless of whether it is 
     connected to any other offense by time or proximity.
       The subsection provides that any Member, Delegate, or 
     Resident Commissioner that has been assessed a fine may 
     appeal the fine in writing to the Committee on Ethics not 
     later than 30 calendar days or five legislative days, 
     whichever is later, after notification. Upon receipt of an 
     appeal, the Committee on Ethics is provided 30 calendar days 
     or five legislative days, whichever is later, to either 
     dismiss the fine or allow it to proceed. Upon a determination 
     regarding the appeal or if no appeal has been filed at the 
     expiration of the period, the chair of the Committee on 
     Ethics shall promptly notify the Member, Delegate, or the 
     Resident Commissioner, the Speaker and the Chief 
     Administrative Officer. The Speaker is required to promptly 
     lay such notification before the House.
       The Sergeant-at-Arms, Committee on Ethics, and Chief 
     Administrative Officer are authorized to establish policies 
     and procedures to implement this subsection. Upon 
     notification from the chair of the Committee on Ethics, the 
     Chief Administrative Officer shall deduct the amount of any 
     fine from the net salary of the Member, Delegate, or Resident 
     Commissioner.
       The subsection also modifies rule XVII to clarify conduct 
     considered disorderly or disruptive during legislative 
     proceedings to ensure that a Member may be referred to the 
     Committee on Ethics for behavior impeding in the rights of 
     another Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner to 
     participate in floor proceedings, including blocking access 
     to legislative instruments such as microphones and blocking 
     access the well of the House.
       Authorization and Oversight Plans. Subsection (b) amends 
     the current oversight plan requirements. The subsection 
     requires each standing committee (except the Committees on 
     Appropriations, Ethics, and Rules) to adopt an authorization 
     and oversight plan, which must be submitted to the Committees 
     on Oversight and Government Reform, House Administration, and 
     Appropriations no later than February 15 of the first session 
     of Congress. The plan must include a list of unauthorized 
     programs and agencies within their jurisdiction that have 
     received funding in the prior fiscal year, or in the case of 
     a permanent authorization, has not received a comprehensive 
     review by the committee in the prior three Congresses. The 
     subsection requires committees to describe each program or 
     agency that is intended to be authorized in the current 
     Congress or next Congress, and a description of oversight to 
     support reauthorization in the current Congress. The 
     subsection also requires recommendations, if any, for moving 
     such programs or agencies from mandatory to discretionary 
     funding.
       The subsection also provides that committees may make 
     recommendations to consolidate or terminate duplicative 
     programs or agencies, or those that are inconsistent with the 
     appropriate role of the Federal government. Committees may 
     make recommendations for changes to existing law to address 
     Federal rules, regulations, statutes, and court decisions 
     related to these programs that are inconsistent with 
     Congress' Article I authorities. The subsection requires the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, after 
     consultation with the Speaker, Majority Leader, and the 
     Minority Leader, report the oversight and authorization plans 
     to the House by March 31 of the first session of Congress.
       Amendments to Appropriation Bills. Subsection (c) codifies 
     the standing order from the 112th, 113th, and 114th 
     Congresses prohibiting an amendment to a general 
     appropriation bill proposing a net increase in budget 
     authority in the bill.
       Duplication of Federal Programs. Subsection (d) codifies 
     the standing order from the 113th and 114th Congresses that 
     requires committee reports to include a statement on whether 
     any provision of the measure establishes or reauthorizes a 
     program of the Federal government known to be duplicative of 
     another Federal program. The subsection also eliminates 
     unnecessary language regarding the authorization of a 
     committee chair to request that the Government Accountability 
     Office perform a duplication analysis of any bill or joint 
     resolution referred to that committee, and makes technical 
     changes.
       Recognition of Members. Subsection (e) eliminates from the 
     rules outdated references to physical mobility. This is a 
     clarification to address the needs of Members who are 
     physically unable to stand.
       Convening Outside the Hall of the House. Subsection (f) 
     conforms the standing rules with current practice regarding 
     convening outside the Hall of the House.
       Temporary Presiding Authority Clarification. Subsection (g) 
     clarifies that the authority of a Speaker pro tempore 
     appointed under clause 8(b)(3)(A) of rule I takes priority 
     over the Clerk's authority to preserve order and decorum 
     pending the election of a new Speaker.
       Continuing Litigation Authorities. Subsection (h) 
     authorizes the House, the Speaker, a committee or chair of a 
     committee to carry forward litigation from the previous 
     Congress as the successor in interest in any continuing 
     litigation matter in which the House, the Speaker, the 
     committee or chair of a committee, respectively, was 
     previously authorized to be involved. This subsection 
     automatically continues previously authorized litigation 
     authority and fully empowers

[[Page 42]]

     the successor in interest to take all steps necessary to 
     carry such litigation forward during the new Congress, 
     thereby eliminating the need for a separate resolution 
     authorizing the continuation of such litigation as in the 
     past.
       Clarifying Staff Access to the House Floor. Subsection (i) 
     conforms the standing rules to the current practice that 
     staff accompanying Members on the floor are not required to 
     remain at the desk.
       Member Records. Subsection (j) adds language to the 
     definition of ``Records of the House'' to clarify the 
     ownership of congressional office records of a Member, 
     Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, and to codify the 
     longstanding custom and practice of the House under which 
     such records have been recognized to be the personal property 
     of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, in keeping 
     with the common law. Prior rules of the House drew a 
     distinction between the records of House committees and 
     officers, on the one hand, and congressional office records 
     of Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, on the 
     other. The latter do not belong to the House, because the 
     Rule expressly defined House ``records'' to exclude them. 
     See, e.g., Rule VII.6, Rules of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, 114th Cong. (2015); Rule XXXVI, Rules of the 
     U.S. House of Representatives, 105th Cong. (1997). This 
     subsection adds language confirming that congressional office 
     records are the personal property of the Member, Delegate, or 
     Resident Commissioner who creates, generates, or receives 
     them, in accordance with longstanding House custom and prior 
     pronouncements. See, e.g., H. Con. Res. 307, 110th Cong. 
     (2008) (``[B]y custom [congressional papers of Members, 
     Delegates, and Resident Commissioners] are considered the 
     personal property of the Member who receives and creates 
     them, and it is therefore the Member who is responsible to 
     decide on their ultimate disposition . . . .''); H. Rep. No. 
     99-994, 99th Cong. (1986), at 5 (``[I]t is relatively clear 
     that Members' papers have been regarded as their personal 
     property . . . .'').
       Response to Subpoenas. Subsection (k) clarifies and 
     streamlines procedures governing notification of, and 
     response to, properly served judicial subpoenas and judicial 
     orders directing appearance as a witness relating to the 
     official functions of the House or compelling the production 
     or disclosure of any document relating to the official 
     functions of the House.
       The subsection continues the practice of granting authority 
     to respond to subpoenas without the necessity of a House 
     vote, and streamlines the notification process to eliminate 
     inefficiencies. The recipient of a properly served judicial 
     subpoena or order compelling testimony or production of 
     documents relating to the official functions of the House 
     must promptly notify the Speaker in writing of the receipt of 
     that judicial order or subpoena and must determine whether 
     the subpoena or order is a proper exercise of the 
     jurisdiction of the court and is consistent with the rights 
     and privileges of the House. In keeping with current 
     practice, the notification to the Speaker must either set 
     forth those determinations (if they have already been made at 
     the time of the notification) or state that the recipient 
     intends to make those determinations. The prior rule's 
     additional reference to determining whether the subpoena or 
     order ``is material and relevant'' has been omitted as 
     redundant and superfluous, because it is subsumed within the 
     requirement to determine whether the subpoena or order is 
     consistent with the privileges and rights of the House; it 
     would not be consistent with the privileges and rights of the 
     House for a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
     or employee to be compelled to respond to a judicial subpoena 
     or order seeking information that is not material and 
     relevant to the underlying cause. Accordingly, no substantive 
     change is made by the deletion of the ``is material and 
     relevant'' determination.
       The subsection omits the obsolete requirements for the 
     Clerk of the House to provide a copy of rule VIII to the 
     court and for recipients of judicial subpoenas or orders to 
     submit ``certified'' copies of documents when production of 
     documents in response to a properly served judicial subpoena 
     or order has been determined to be appropriate. References to 
     administrative subpoenas relating to the official functions 
     of the House have also been deleted, because the rule should 
     not be interpreted to suggest that compliance with such 
     subpoenas may be mandatory. The subsection deletes the truism 
     that notifications received when the House is adjourned will 
     be laid before the House upon its reconvening.
       Requirements for Subcommittees. Subsection (1) codifies the 
     exceptions carried in previous rules packages to clause 5(d) 
     of rule X to allow the Committee on Appropriations up to 
     thirteen subcommittees, the Committees on Armed Services, 
     Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Government Reform up to 
     seven subcommittees, and the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure up to six subcommittees.
       Committee Hearings. Subsection (m) provides the Committee 
     on Homeland Security with authority to close hearings for an 
     additional 5 consecutive days when considering sensitive 
     matters that require an executive session.
       Referrals to the Court of Claims. Subsection (n) conforms 
     the standing rules with the current practice that measures 
     making a referral to the Court of Claims are referred to the 
     private calendar.
       Contents of Committee Reports Showing Changes to Existing 
     Law. Subsection (o) modifies language adopted in the 114th 
     Congress to address an unintended consequence that required a 
     committee report or accompanying document to portray 
     duplicative prints. This subsection continues to require that 
     a Ramseyer print show the entire text of each section of 
     statute that is proposed to be repealed and a comparative 
     print of each amendment to the entire text of a section of 
     statute the bill or joint resolution proposes to make. The 
     subsection also clarifies existing practice that appropriate 
     typographical devices be used for both repealed text and 
     comparative prints.
       Authority to Postpone Record Votes on Certain Motions. 
     Subsection (p) adds motions to recommit and motions to concur 
     to the list of postponable questions under clause 8 of rule 
     XX.
       Conforming Guidelines for Five-Minute Voting. Subsection 
     (q) clarifies that the Speaker's ability to reduce the time 
     for a vote pursuant to clause 9(b) or 9(c) of rule XX is 
     subject to the same guidelines as the reduction of the time 
     for a vote pursuant to clause 8(c)(2) of rule XX.
       Electronic Availability. Subsection (r) modifies and 
     codifies a standing order from the 112th, 113th, and 114th 
     Congresses by designating the electronic document repository 
     operated by the Clerk of the House for the purposes of 
     electronic availability rules.
       Comparative Prints for Bills or Joint Resolution Considered 
     on Floor. Subsection (s) provides that by December 31, 2017, 
     each bill, joint resolution, or amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall have an easily searchable electronic 
     comparative print that shows how the proposed legislation 
     will change current law, showing by appropriate typographical 
     devices the omissions and insertions proposed. The subsection 
     also seeks to enhance transparency on changes made to a 
     measure after it has been reported by a committee.
       Appointments of Chair. Subsection (t) allows Delegates and 
     the Resident Commissioner to serve as chair of the Committee 
     of the Whole.
     Section 3. Separate Orders.
       Holman Rule. Subsection (a) provides a new standing order 
     for the first session of the 115th Congress based on the 
     ``Holman Rule,'' most of which was removed from the standing 
     rules in 1983. This standing order functions as an exception 
     to clause 2 of rule XXI to allow provisions changing law in 
     certain limited circumstances. Under this order, a provision 
     in a general appropriation bill or an amendment thereto may 
     contain legislation to retrench expenditures by (1) reducing 
     amounts of money in the bill, (2) reducing the number or 
     salaries of Federal employees, or (3) reducing the 
     compensation of any person paid by the Treasury. To qualify 
     for treatment under this order, an amendment must be offered 
     after the reading of the bill and must comply with all 
     applicable rules of the House, such as the germaneness rule. 
     The purpose of this provision is to see if the reinstatement 
     of the Holman rule will provide Members with additional tools 
     to reduce spending during consideration of the regular 
     general appropriation bills.
       Staff Deposition Authority. Subsection (b) carries forward 
     and modifies provisions from the 114th Congress to provide 
     the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and each 
     standing committee of the 115th Congress (except for the 
     Committees on Rules and House Administration) the authority 
     to order the taking of a deposition by a member or committee 
     counsel of such committee. The authority provided under this 
     subsection extends for the entirety of the 115th Congress. 
     Depositions taken under this authority are subject to 
     regulations issued by the chair of the Committee on Rules and 
     printed in the Congressional Record.
       The subsection modifies the member attendance requirement, 
     which applies unless (1) the witness waives the requirement 
     or (2) the committee authorizes the taking of a specified 
     deposition without the presence of a member during a 
     specified period and the deposition occurs on a day that the 
     House is not in session. The latter authority enables a 
     committee to authorize the taking of one or more such 
     depositions of one or more specified witnesses at any point 
     over the course of a specified period of days, such as a 
     district work period.
       Independent Payment Advisory Board. Subsection (c) carries 
     forward a provision from the 113th and 114th Congresses that 
     turns off a provision contained in the Affordable Care Act, 
     which limits the ability of the House to determine the method 
     of consideration for a recommendation from the Independent 
     Payment Advisory Board or to repeal the provision in its 
     entirety.
       Providing for Transparency with Respect to Memorials 
     Submitted Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution of the 
     United States. Subsection (d) carries forward and modifies 
     provisions from the 114th Congress that clarify the 
     procedures of the House regarding the receipt of Article V 
     memorials from the States

[[Page 43]]

     by directing the Clerk to make each memorial, designated by 
     the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, electronically 
     available, organized by State of origin and year of receipt, 
     and indicate whether the memorial was designated as an 
     application or recession.
       In carrying out this subsection, it is expected that the 
     chair of the Committee on the Judiciary will be solely 
     charged with determining whether a memorial purports to be an 
     application of the legislature of a state calling for a 
     constitutional convention or recession of prior applications. 
     The Clerk's role will be entirely administrative. The chair 
     of the Committee on the Judiciary will only designate 
     memorials from state legislatures (and not petitions from 
     individuals or other parties), as it is only state 
     legislatures that are contemplated under Article V of the 
     Constitution.
       In submitting each memorial to the Clerk, the chair of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary will include a transmission letter 
     that indicates it has been designated under this subsection 
     of House Resolution 5. The Clerk will make publicly available 
     the memorial and the transmission letter from the chair. 
     Ancillary documentation from the state or other parties is 
     not expected to be publicized.
       The chair of the Committee on the Judiciary is also 
     permitted to designate memorials from Congresses prior to the 
     114th Congress to be made publicly available under the same 
     procedure.
       Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills. 
     Subsection (e) modifies and carries forward the prohibition 
     from the 112th, 113th, and 114th Congresses against 
     consideration of a general appropriation bill that does not 
     include a ``spending reduction account.'' The subsection 
     updates the definition of a spending reduction account to 
     state a recitation of the amount by which an applicable 
     allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) 
     (Appropriations subcommittee allocations) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of new 
     budget authority proposed by the bill, or if no such 
     allocation is in effect, $0.
       Point of Order Against Motion to Rise and Report. 
     Subsection (f) carries forward from the 113th and 114th 
     Congresses the requirement that prevents the Committee of the 
     Whole from rising to report a bill to the House that exceeds 
     an applicable allocation of new budget authority under 
     section 302(b) as estimated by the Committee on the Budget 
     and continues a point of order.
       Limitation on Advance Appropriations. Subsection (g) 
     provides limits against a fiscal year 2017 general 
     appropriation bill or measure continuing appropriations from 
     making advanced appropriations in fiscal year 2018. The 
     subsection provides a limited number of standard exceptions 
     which provide advanced appropriations only for fiscal year 
     2018.
       Point of Order Against Increasing Direct Spending. 
     Subsection (h) establishes a point of order against 
     consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a 
     committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) or an 
     amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon, which has 
     the net effect of increasing direct spending in excess of $5 
     billion for any of the four consecutive ten fiscal year 
     periods beginning with the first fiscal year that is 10 
     fiscal years after the current fiscal year. The subsection 
     also provides exemptions for measures repealing or reforming 
     the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health 
     Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010, 
     and measures where the chair of the Committee on the Budget 
     made an adjustment to the allocation levels or limits 
     contained in the most recently adopted budget resolution.
       Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings. Subsection (i) carries 
     forward and modifies the requirement that committee reports 
     on bills or joint resolutions include a list of directed rule 
     makings required by the measure or a statement that the 
     measure contains no directed rule makings. The subsection 
     carries forward the definition of ``directed rule making'' to 
     include those rule makings specifically directed to be 
     completed by a provision in the legislation, but does not 
     include a grant of discretionary rule making authority. The 
     prior standing order only required an estimate of the number 
     of direct rule makings.
       Exercise Facilities for Former Members. Subsection (j) 
     continues the prohibition on access to any exercise facility 
     that is made available exclusively to Members, former 
     Members, officers, and former officers of the House and their 
     spouses to any former Member, former officer, or spouse who 
     is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
     1995.
       Numbering of Bills. Subsection (k) reserves the first 10 
     numbers for bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 10) for assignment by 
     the Speaker and the second 10 numbers (H.R. 11 through H.R. 
     20) for assignment by the Minority Leader.
       Inclusion of U.S. Code Citations for Proposed Repeals and 
     Amendments. Subsection (1) continues to add, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, a requirement for parallel citations for 
     amendatory instructions to Public Laws and Statutes at Large 
     that are not classified in the U.S. Code.
       Broadening Availability of Legislative Documents in 
     Machine-Readable Formats. Subsection (m) continues to 
     instruct the appropriate officers and committees to continue 
     to advance government transparency by taking further steps to 
     publish documents of the House in machine-readable formats.
       Congressional Member Organization Transparency Reform. 
     Subsection (n) carries forward the provisions from the 114th 
     Congress to allow participating Members to enter into 
     agreements with eligible Congressional Member Organizations 
     for the purpose of payment of salaries and expenses. The 
     Committee on House Administration is required to promulgate 
     regulations, consistent with current law, to carry out this 
     subsection.
       Social Security Solvency. Subsection (o) carries forward 
     from the 114th Congress a point of order against legislation 
     that would reduce the actuarial balance of the Federal Old-
     Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, but provides an 
     exemption to the point of order if a measure improves the 
     overall financial health of the combined Social Security 
     Trust Funds. This subsection would protect the Old-Age and 
     Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund from diversion of its 
     funds to finance a broken Disability Insurance system.
       Subcommittees. Subsection (p) waives clause 5(d) of rule X 
     to allow the Committee on Agriculture up to six 
     subcommittees, which is consistent with authorities in the 
     114th Congress.
       Treatment of Conveyances of Federal Land. Subsection (q) 
     provides that any provision in a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report requiring or authorizing a 
     conveyance of federal land to a State, local government, or 
     tribal entity, shall not be considered as providing new 
     budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory 
     spending, or increasing outlays.
     Section 4. Committees, Commissions, and House Offices.
       House Democracy Partnership. Subsection (a) reauthorizes 
     the House Democracy Assistance Commission, now known as the 
     House Democracy Partnership.
       Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. Subsection (b) 
     reauthorizes the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.
       Office of Congressional Ethics. Subsection (c) reauthorizes 
     the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) and clarifies that 
     term limits do not apply to members of the OCE. The 
     subsection reaffirms that a person subject to a review by the 
     Office of Congressional Ethics has a right to be represented 
     by counsel, and establishes that invoking such right is not 
     to be held as a presumption of guilt. The subsection modifies 
     the language to require consultation prior to the appointment 
     of members rather than concurrence. The subsection also 
     prohibits the Office of Congressional Ethics from taking 
     action that would deny a person any rights or protections 
     provided under the Constitution of the United States of 
     America.
     Section 5. Additional Orders of Business.
       Reading of the Constitution. Subsection (a) allows the 
     Speaker to recognize Members for the reading of the 
     Constitution on any legislative day through January 13, 2017.
       Consideration of Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017. 
     Subsection (b) provides for the consideration of the Midnight 
     Rules Relief Act of 2017 under a closed rule.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, today is an exciting day, a brand new 
115th Congress. Here in the House of Representatives, we have new 
Members of Congress who are bringing their families, coming to 
Washington with a sense of exuberance, but mostly with what I believe 
is respect for the American people who sent them here, respect for the 
people who elected each of us with the thoughts and ideas from our 
districts back home, all the way to the election of the President-elect 
of the United States of America, Donald Trump.
  So we do this every 2 years. We reorganize the House of 
Representatives. We start anew. We start fresh. We start with the best 
ideas that are brought forth, and we try and bring the teams together. 
That is what Republicans have done. That is what Democrats are doing. 
We gather together and add up literally the amount of teams and who is 
on each side, and that is how we determine who is elected the Speaker 
of the House. It is from the majority party. In this case, today we 
elected the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a great young leader 
for not just our party, but for our country.
  So today what we do is we show up and we exercise our constitutional 
rights, our duties, our views, the ideas that we have, the ideas that 
we were sent here to exercise, and the ideas of our majorities, of the 
bodies, of the groups that we represent.
  So today those men and women who gather together with their ideas and 
plans, they are going to help project and move our country forward over 
the next 2 years. I think that what we are saying today is important. 
That is, we

[[Page 44]]

are trying to change the direction that this country has been going for 
at least 2 years, and some could argue for 8 years. We are going to 
change that direction because the American people have given 
Republicans an opportunity to lead in the United States House of 
Representatives, in the United States Senate, and in the Presidency of 
the United States.
  I believe that we are looking at those elected officials, including 
the newly elected President, at the next generation, people who will 
take our places soon, people who we need to leave a better America for, 
people who are counting on us to, yes, as the saying goes, Make America 
Great Again, but, more importantly, to live up to the challenges of our 
job, the challenges that the American people have said we expect you to 
go to Washington and make tough decisions, not easy decisions, but to 
do things that are in our best interest rather than in the best 
interest of a government.
  Well, that is what this experiment is about. This experiment takes 
place every 4 years with the election of a Presidency and perhaps every 
2 years with a new Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, during the first 7 years of the Obama administration, 
they had an opportunity, the House, to send to the President, to forge 
a path that they felt would be best for the American people, perhaps 
based upon a calling or the things that they heard. What happened is 
that Federal regulations added up to an average of 81 new major 
regulations per year for a total of 556 regulations, at least 220 of 
which contained new burdens on individuals and businesses with an 
annual cost of $108 billion.
  We see things differently. That is why you are going to see not only 
in the rules package, but by the way that we do business here in the 
House of Representatives, that we look at regulations differently; that 
we work based upon the law, the intent of the law, not the intent of a 
regulator who would, as I would suggest, see things perhaps differently 
than others would see them.
  So while it sounds like these are staggering numbers and they do a 
lot of damage on our country, it is not too late to change that. It is 
not too late to reevaluate the way things have been done and the way 
that things should be done.
  So we have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do not just 
about rules and regulations but about the day-to-day business, the 
progression of GDP, and the growth of jobs and job creation in this 
country.
  For the first time in a long time, we will have a President-elect--
yes, Donald Trump--who will, I believe, work with the United States 
Congress forthrightly and find the avenues of consensus between the 
House of Representatives and between the United States Senate to push 
this body.
  I met with Mr. Trump earlier in the year when he was just a candidate 
for the Presidency, and he told me point blank: It is not so much that 
I am opposed to what you guys are doing in Congress; it is more to I 
think you ought to be forced into making more tough decisions.
  He said: I think Congress gets away from doing the tough things. They 
do the easy lift rather than the things that will be better for the 
American people, because proud people sent us up here.
  That is the standard that, I believe, we should adopt to have and be 
prepared for in these next 2 years: tough, straightforward, honest work 
that is meaningful, that can move our country forward, that will propel 
a generation to believe not only in a great day's pay and a hard day's 
work, but, more importantly, leading to something that will make our 
country stronger and yet stronger the next day with a heartbeat from a 
Nation and a people who deeply believe that America's greatest days are 
in our future and they are willing to give that to the next generation. 
That is why we are here.
  We have a lot of new Members who bring ideas, Mr. Speaker. They come 
here to Washington full and brimming with ideas about things that they 
would like to see happen. Well, what we are going to do is we are going 
to make sure that we are ready to do business with them, that we are 
open and prepared for them.
  So you will see that this package carries forward many of the rules 
from the previous Congress and builds on House Republicans' efforts to 
streamline House processes, increase transparency, and improve 
accountability. Specifically, it preserves the important reforms that 
were made in three previous Congresses. It also adds perfecting 
amendments in order to help us further advance and share our ideas and 
goals of transparency.
  We think this is important. We think the ideas that are contained 
within this package will help propel not only us in better 
decisionmaking, but the American people will buy into what we are 
doing.
  Fairness is important for all of us. As chairman of the Rules 
Committee, it is my hope that I will continue to be open, that the 
Rules Committee will be open to hearing from every single Member. We 
will welcome them. They will know that they are in the right place to 
not only share their ideas, but one where they can receive feedback on 
those ideas and help participate in what we do.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what we are here today to do, the new rules 
package for the 115th Congress.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, there is a provision 
in the rules that are proposed which are not in the rules of the last 
Congress, which give us great pause because we think it tends to put 
Members in a difficult place from a constitutional perspective and from 
a freedom-of-speech perspective. The rule, of course, of which I speak 
is the rule that relates to empowering the Sergeant at Arms to levy 
fines.

                              {time}  1515

  May I ask the gentleman first: Did the Rules Committee find that 
there was any precedent for such a provision in rules historically?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I would 
like to refer to something which I believe has been made available, 
and, if not, I would be very pleased to do it.
  The House has delegated fining authority, section 1103 of the Manual, 
where the House incorporates, by reference, title I of the Ethics in 
Government Act. Under this section, if a financial disclosure is filed 
late, the filer is subject to a $200 filing fee. It is a fine by 
another name that is administered by the House Ethics Committee.
  So what I am suggesting to you is we have seen where there has been 
the backup of rules that have been backed up by the levying of a fine, 
and I believe that is what the gentleman is seeking.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, and will the gentleman yield again?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  The gentleman refers to a fee that was levied, apparently, for a late 
filing of a financial disclosure statement that is required under the 
rules. We are troubled, however, by the fact that this is not a fee in 
the sense; it is a penalty for taking an action which is obviously 
directed toward proscribing that action, which we see as speech and 
transparency to the American people.
  One of the things that concerns us most, Mr. Speaker, is that there 
appears to be no due process; that is to say, the Sergeant at Arms can 
make an individual determination as to whether or not the rule has been 
violated without any opportunity given to the Member to explain or deny 
the allegations that are made on which the fine would be based.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the gentleman asking me.
  As a matter of fact, we believe this may have been addressed 
yesterday by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows), who 
specifically, in our Conference, brought this issue up. It is my 
understanding, as I further consult my assistant who is well briefed on 
this, that the Meadows amendment has allowed a process which allows an 
appeal to the Ethics Committee that

[[Page 45]]

would be outside of the person who originally made the fine present, 
would go to the Ethics Committee for them to assess that challenge as 
necessary.
  Mr. HOYER. If I might, that was adopted last night?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I believe that is correct, sir.
  Mr. HOYER. So it is not in the rules as disclosed?
  Mr. SESSIONS. It would be in this package that I believe we have 
today. It was not in what was originally brought forth, publicly 
available, and then changed last night when that was then posted on the 
Rules Committee Web site. Yes, sir.
  Mr. HOYER. Thank you for that response.
  I have one additional question. We looked at what might be precedent. 
Frankly, the only one we could come up with was the gag rule that was 
adopted in the 19th century which precluded the introduction of 
legislation which would abolish slavery in the various States. That 
rule was in place for a number of years until ultimately repealed.
  This rule, we believe, Mr. Speaker, seeks to gag Members of the House 
of Representatives. It seeks to undermine transparency to the extent 
that it relates to communications devices which can--and at the point 
in time the grievance, from your perspective, occurred, we were in 
recess, as the gentleman understands.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, sir.
  Mr. HOYER. If I may conclude, as the gentleman knows, and I won't say 
thousands, but hundreds of pictures were taken just an hour ago on this 
floor--hundreds. We were in session, not in recess.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If I could address that, and I want to do this very 
gingerly because I do not want to start a battle here. The gentleman 
and I both know what caused this action was a deep, deep feeling that 
many Members on your side had about a particular issue. It resulted in 
what could be seen as--and I saw it as--a protest. Look, we are used to 
that in this body, people being upset. We are not used to people 
violating the rule, and it already was a rule that you cannot use, for 
recording purposes, those devices. We did not make this up. That was 
already a rule. So it became an advent of a protest.
  We are simply trying to say--and I am not trying to get you to change 
your viewpoints at all--but I think it would be wise, and I believe we 
will not always be in the majority. I believe some day there will be a 
chance where the Democrats will be in the majority. I would be for this 
same rule, for the sake of the Speaker and the leadership and the 
person sitting in that chair. I can look at myself in a mirror because 
I was a part of this thinking. How do we say to Members a gag order 
says you cannot utter bad things? This, if you are willing to pay the 
fine and you want to do that, that is not a gag order. That is a 
violation of a rule. If you would like to participate in that, go for 
it all you want. But I don't think it is the right thing. So we tried 
to limit, in my opinion, very carefully to say we are going to make 
this a fine.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that response, and I appreciate 
his feelings and, I think, his intellectually honest feelings.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I take it that way, and I know the gentleman does, too. 
That is why we are using my time right now, and I assume the gentleman 
knows that.
  Mr. HOYER. Let me briefly close, then, by saying that the gentleman 
in his opening comments talked about transparency and talked about 
openness.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I sure did.
  Mr. HOYER. And the Speaker talked about, just after noon, about 
respecting one another's views and hearing one another's views and 
considering one another's views, even though we disagree with them. I 
share the Speaker's view on that. Very frankly, I think the gentleman 
is correct; it was a protest which gave rise to this rule which I think 
is ill-advised, but I understand the difference.
  The protest was because--and as Rules chairman, the gentleman 
probably knows this better than anybody else--we asked for an amendment 
that we thought 85 to 90 percent of the American people were for. We 
didn't get transparency, we didn't get openness, and we did not get an 
opportunity to express our views. That is why we are so concerned 
because we think, frankly, this is analogous to a gag rule: to shut us 
down, to shut us out, and to shut us up. But I appreciate the 
gentleman's view.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. The 
gentleman understands what I am saying because, if the shoe were on the 
other foot, I am telling you I would still be on this foot and this 
shoe. I think the gentleman understands that because he has been in the 
position of not only responsibility but power, and he did not misuse 
his power nor his judgment, and I do not think we are. But we are 
trying to lay out, ahead of time, what it would be. I thank the 
gentleman very much for his feedback to me.
  I would add one more thing. I have always, during the years I have 
been the Rules Committee chair, tried to make the committee open to 
anybody that would choose to come up, to speak as long as they would 
like to speak, as long as they move forward with their ideas without 
commanding the committee, telling us what to do, and I would hope that 
we continue to do that. As I told the gentleman years ago, I am open to 
his feedback.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his patience and for 
participating in this session.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume; and I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding me the customary time, and I want to wish 
everybody a happy new year. I hope, circumstances notwithstanding, that 
we can have one.
  I want to follow on what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) was 
talking about. I have been pretty concerned here since the day we did 
what was a protest regarding some of the actions we are looking at. 
Last night, in what I thought was a moment of pique, the majority 
decided that they would put into the rules package a gutting of the 
Office of Congressional Ethics, which was totally unconstitutional in 
the fact that they were not going to get rid of it, but they took 
everything it had from them and forbade them having on their committee 
a person who could talk to the press and forbade them talking to 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, that is a gag order. That is against the constitutional 
right that we have. It was only an hour ago that all of us raised our 
right hand and swore that we were going to uphold the Constitution, and 
now, not an hour later, we are struggling to defy it. This is not new 
for me. I have been very concerned about this since we were here in 
June and had our protest.
  Now, it is our job, and we all said we were going to protect the 
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. But we may have 
enemies right here in the room, which is troubling to me, because of 
what happened last night. I appreciate that cooler heads prevailed and 
that part was taken out because there was such a hue and cry of: ``What 
the heck do they think they are doing now?'' So this whole change did 
not last even 24 hours. In conjunction with that, I need to go back to 
what happened here on the House floor.
  We tried for years to try to do the simplest kinds of things on gun 
control measures: background checks, closing loopholes, coming up with 
absolutely nothing. We live in a country now where doctors are 
forbidden from asking patients if there are guns in the home. Doctors 
can ask if there are drugs in the home or any other thing that may 
cause great harm, but they are not allowed, by law, to ask if there are 
guns in the home. We have gone so far in the gun culture here that 335 
million Americans own over 320 million guns, and that is life now in 
the United States.
  So what we were trying to do, what we thought made the most eminent 
sense--and I would almost guarantee that not a single American man, 
woman, or child would object to it--we

[[Page 46]]

said, if you were on the terrorist list and you can't fly on an 
airplane, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. We called it no fly, no 
buy. There is such eminent sense in it. But because we are shut out--
and I know there is a lot of openness talk going on today, but in the 
Rules Committee there is none. We didn't have an open rule all year, 
over this whole last term. We don't get amendments. We don't get to 
talk. We were desperate to try to do something about the carnage in 
this country.
  Because it was overwhelming to us, we decided something had to be 
done about letting terrorists who couldn't get on airplanes have guns. 
So we gathered our people. I think it was totally spontaneous. There 
was no great plan to do it, no vote to get here. So we sat here and 
talked peacefully. The microphones were all turned off and C-SPAN was 
shut out. They couldn't hear what was going on. Because of the times we 
live in, some of our enterprising Members, they took their iPhones and 
streamed what was going on on the floor. Then Facebook took it up, and 
then C-SPAN got it from their stream and the whole country saw what was 
going on here. It was basically for the first time.
  Now, one of the things in the Constitution that we all revere today 
is the right of peaceful assembly. There were no threats, no action, no 
violence, no anything. We just said, if we have no bill, we will have 
no break. Everybody understood exactly what we were trying to do.
  So now what we are getting to, which again is totally 
unconstitutional, is to decide to fine Members of Congress for doing 
what we did. In other words, their free speech does not work on the 
floor of the House of Representatives, when we are the people who swear 
to uphold the Constitution.
  It was really an amazing sight for the people of America to see that 
kind of thing going on here where we are so circumscribed in what we 
say and how long we have to say it. So the rules of the House that we 
are doing today say you are going to punish a sitting Member, but not 
in the way that the Constitution says you can do that.

                              {time}  1530

  If you are going to punish a Member in the House, the whole House has 
to vote on it. But there is no provision in there to allow anybody 
other than the leader of this House to fine a Member.
  The idea of your doing that so that people can have due process is 
ridiculous. If you are brought up on ethics charges, you have lawyers. 
It was proposed simply to get at us and to say to the minority: Keep 
your place over there; you know where you belong.
  So I have talked to numerous lawyers and constitutional experts, and 
I know that was unconstitutional. I think I have said enough about it, 
but I think we will have more to say on another day.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 12\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 24 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlewoman, and, again, I thank the gentleman 
from Texas for being generous with his time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned by a number of controversial 
provisions included by the majority in the rules they have proposed for 
the 115th Congress.
  First, reinstating the Holman rule would make it easier for the 
majority to circumvent the current legislative process in order to fire 
or cut the pay of Federal employees. It undermines civil service 
protections. It goes back to the 19th century. Republicans have 
consistently made our hardworking Federal employees scapegoats, in my 
opinion, for lack of performance of the Federal Government itself, and 
this rules change will enable them to make shortsighted and 
ideologically driven changes to our Nation's civil service.
  Secondly, I am deeply concerned by the rules changes regarding 
decorum in this House. The chairman was generous enough to have that 
discussion with me. When the cameras were turned off in this House, 
there was no way to communicate with the American people other than by 
something that I didn't know existed, and that was the streaming of the 
debate that was going on. As the ranking member of the Rules Committee 
pointed out, it was peaceful, it was honest, and it was deeply held. 
Now you seek to impose fines and ethics charges against any Member who 
broadcasts to the American people what takes place in the people's 
House while it is in recess and deny Americans access to their 
Congress.
  Thirdly--and I am very concerned about this and I will talk to the 
chairman further about it at some point in time--these rules continue 
the Republican policy of denying a voice to the people of the District 
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana 
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
  When I was majority leader, we allowed them to vote in the Committee 
of the Whole. It showed them respect, it gave them a reason to come to 
the floor, and it gave them an opportunity to have their constituents 
see how they felt on a particular issue by putting their name up on the 
board. I regret that we were unable to continue that policy and I will 
talk to the chairman about it further.
  Millions of american citizens will not be able to have their 
delegates and resident commissioner represent their views during the 
consideration of amendments in the Committee of the Whole House.
  I also find it deeply disturbing that Republicans had been planning 
to use this rules package to strip away the independence of the Office 
of Congressional Ethics.
  When Democrats took the majority in 2007, we created that body to 
ensure that the strictest ethical standards are upheld in this House, 
and that partisanship could never get in the way of those standards.
  I am glad that public pressure led Republicans to abandon this ill-
conceived proposal.
  The American people deserve a Congress whose rules reflect what is 
best about our country--fair, just, and honorable.
  This package does not meet that test.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), who is the assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the proposed changes to 
the rules of the House that are before us today. I have long maintained 
that the Affordable Care Act is the Civil Rights Act of the 21st 
century. Repealing the Affordable Care Act and putting discrimination 
back into health care is a step history will not forgive.
  While the majority has included a new rule limiting the consideration 
of legislation which increases direct spending in excess of $5 billion, 
they have specifically exempted from this rule any spending that may 
flow from repeal of the Affordable Care Act.
  They are admitting in their own rules that their proposal to repeal 
the Affordable Care Act will be devastating for the Federal deficit and 
the national debt. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has 
estimated that full repeal of the ACA will increase the deficit by $137 
billion. The Rules Committee has put before the House a rule that 
defies all those expectations.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley), who is the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
such time.
  Well, it is a new year, but it is the same old games from our 
Republican colleagues. This time they are using the official rules of 
the House to further their radical agenda and to gag

[[Page 47]]

Members of the Democratic Caucus, which you all know includes taking 
away healthcare coverage for millions of Americans, putting insurance 
companies back in charge of healthcare decisions, and raising costs for 
taxpayers in this country.
  Among all the power grabs and cynical ploys in this rules package, 
there is a very telling sign in their priorities. They know that their 
plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act won't just create chaos for 
American families and their health care; it will also blow a huge 
deficit in our Nation's budget--a huge deficit in our Nation's budget--
the height of irresponsible governing.
  But they apparently won't let that get in the way of political games. 
So, today, the majority is giving themselves a pass. They wrote a rule 
that allows them to ignore the huge financial impact of gutting our 
healthcare system. They are, once again, putting themselves above the 
law and crushing everyday Americans under their shoes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez), who is the vice-chair of the Democratic 
Caucus.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the partisan and free-
speech-crushing Republican rules package governing the 115th Congress.
  I had such high hopes that we would start off 2017 by working 
together on bipartisan reforms and improvements to the procedures that 
govern this body. Instead, I am disappointed, but not surprised, to 
find that House Republicans would rather undermine the public trust and 
integrity of this institution by these dangerous proposed changes in 
the rules package, changes that truly undermine the very foundation of 
our Constitution.
  The American public deserves transparency and honesty in the way that 
their elected officials govern themselves. Instead, this rules package 
is a dangerous step towards silencing free speech and open debate in 
the very place that should be the shining example for the world. These 
rules changes frighten me. We can't stand by and allow the very core of 
our democracy to be shredded.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rules 
package.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the co-chair of the House Democratic 
Steering and Policy Committee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this rules package sets a disturbing tone 
for our new session of Congress. It requires authorizing committees to 
propose programs that should be moved from mandatory to discretionary.
  Now, what does that mean?
  Mandatory programs must be funded--must. Discretionary programs do 
not have to be funded. It is a calculated move to cut vital programs 
like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Pell grants.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I know that we do not 
even have the discretionary money--the dollars--to support the current 
programs in place. Medical research at the National Institutes of 
Health has been cut by $7.5 billion since 2003.
  These rules also deny Members their freedom of speech. They institute 
potentially unconstitutional mechanisms to punish Members for speaking 
their minds on the floor of this House and delivering a message to 
people. Our constituents elect us to speak our minds on the floor of 
this House.
  It is wrong, it is a disgrace, and it is the wrong way to start a new 
session. This represents the total denunciation of what our jobs are as 
Members of Congress.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Swalwell), who is the co-chair of the House Democratic 
Steering and Policy Committee.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, today begins the House 
Republicans' efforts to end the guarantee of Medicare, an earned 
benefit giving our seniors healthcare security. Today also marks a 
united effort by House Democrats to protect it.
  Taking away this healthcare guarantee from our seniors hurts not just 
the seniors but everyone in the family. It is a family matter. Ending 
Medicare will burden their children and families who have to shoulder 
the responsibility of picking up the costs of their parents' health 
care.
  Many of those children are millennials, millions of whom now have 
health care thanks to the Affordable Care Act--health security that is 
also under threat due to the incoming administration and this 
Republican House. These efforts will further jeopardize the health 
security of millennials who are paying into it and expecting to receive 
benefits when they get older.
  We are obligated to protect the health security of all Americans, 
young and old. Help hold the health and economic security of families 
together and vote against this resolution.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who is the ranking member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, as Joe Friday used to say: ``Just the facts, 
ma'am.''
  Let's oppose H. Res. 5 because this is a backdoor effort to move away 
from the Affordable Care Act. The act does work, it continues to work, 
and the statistics bear it out. It has increased the solvency of the 
Medicare, Social Security trust fund by 10 years. 137 million Americans 
now have access to preventive care, which saves us costs in the long 
run. Woe to those who decide that they are going to make fundamental 
alterations to this without explaining to the American people what they 
mean.
  Medicaid at one time in Johnson's vision was supposed to be for the 
poor. Medicaid, because of long-term care, dementia, Alzheimer's 
disease, and nursing homes, has quickly become a middle class benefit.
  Early intervention saves costs in the long run, and that is precisely 
what the Affordable Care Act was intended to do, and it has been 
successful. When you look today at the Affordable Care Act and how it 
has worked, there are 20 million more Americans who now have health 
insurance.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, we might remind ourselves of this today as 
well. This is also a sneaky effort to alter Medicare and its guarantee, 
and next it will be on to Social Security. What we want to understand 
here is, because of the Affordable Care Act and the solvency of the 
trust funds, that Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and the 
Affordable Care Act have all now been wed. You can't change one without 
making alterations to the other.
  Here is another consideration: you could not hope, if you were in 
your 40s today, preparing children for college and simultaneously 
taking care of aged parents. So let me boldly assert--and I think it 
bears up under scrutiny--the reason that Mom and Dad are not living in 
your attic is because of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now 
the Affordable Care Act.
  We have heard a lot of talk about repeal, repeal, and repeal. I 
guarantee you in an actuarial sense, as an individual who pays a lot of 
attention to this, you are going to have a great deal of difficulty 
touching one of these entitlements without touching the others.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for extending the time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the resolution that would establish a point 
of order against any legislation that would

[[Page 48]]

undo the requirements in the Affordable Care Act that have provided 
millions of Americans with affordable access to quality health care.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), who is the distinguished ranking member of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today we are seeing just how far House 
Republicans are willing to go to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The 
party that claims to be fiscally responsible is now looking to change 
the rules of the House so that it can be fiscally reckless in its 
dangerous assault on the Affordable Care Act.
  House Republicans know that repealing the ACA will increase direct 
spending and the deficit by $3 trillion, and this cynical rules 
proposal shows that Republicans want to hide the true costs of their 
repeal plans from the American people.
  Now, repealing the ACA would take away health care from about 20 to 
30 million people. It would increase healthcare costs for everyone 
else. Premium growth for Americans in employer-sponsored plans has 
slowed since the ACA became law.

                              {time}  1545

  If the ACA had not been enacted and average growth remained the same, 
job-based premiums would be a projected $3,600 higher today.
  Repeal will also harm hospitals. The hospital industry has warned 
that repealing the ACA could cost hospitals $165 billion and trigger an 
``unprecedented public health crisis.'' Since the ACA was enacted, 
uncompensated care costs have declined for hospitals by approximately 
21 percent. These costs cripple hospitals and are passed on to others 
in the form of higher prices.
  Mr. Speaker, repeal would also harm the 55 million seniors and people 
with disabilities enrolled in Medicare. In addition to ensuring free 
preventive services for Medicare beneficiaries and closing the 
prescription drug doughnut hole, the ACA lengthened the solvency of the 
Medicare trust fund by 11 years.
  Reforms in the ACA helped slow the rate of healthcare cost growth in 
Medicare, which means Medicare seniors pay less today than they would 
have if the ACA weren't enacted. Medicare spending was $473 billion 
less from 2009 to 2014, compared with spending if pre-ACA cost growth 
trends had continued. Repeal would reverse these gains and shift costs 
to seniors who simply cannot afford it.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans say they are fiscally responsible and that 
government spending is out of control, but today they will vote to add 
$3 trillion to the deficit with their ACA repeal bill. Their assault is 
not logical. I urge all Members to vote against this GOP hypocrisy.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Byrne), one of the most distinguished members of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about free speech. There is not one 
thing in this rules package that interferes with any Member's right of 
free speech. In fact, what it does is guarantee our right of free 
speech because it provides a way for disciplining people in this body 
who break our rules of decorum. Every time one of us breaks the rules 
of decorum, we rob the right of free speech from other Members.
  The rules of decorum are not new. They go back to the beginning of 
our constitutional government in Mr. Jefferson's Manual. As technology 
has proceeded in this world, our rules have kept up. We haven't created 
any new sanction. We created a new way to make the sanction be 
effective. Without effective sanctions, we cannot have free speech on 
this floor. Every Member of this House should be concerned about 
maintaining the decorum of the House.
  The package also contains very important provisions, such as removing 
outdated references to physical mobility, codifying that those Members 
who cannot stand due to age, infirmity, or disability are not required 
to do so.
  The package provides that by December 31, 2017, each bill, joint 
resolution, or amendment in the nature of a substitute will have a 
searchable, comparative print that shows how the proposed legislation 
will change current law. This will enhance transparency in our process 
so that Members and the general public will know what we are doing.
  The package contains a provision championed by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Griffith) that restores the Holman rule to the House. 
This provision, which lasted almost a century, until it was removed in 
1983, will allow the Congress to easily reform the Federal Government 
and cut down on bureaucracy.
  I was pleased the rules package also includes an important effort to 
address unauthorized appropriations, an issue I have championed as a 
member of the Rules Committee. I think it is very concerning for 
Congress to appropriate money to any Federal agency that has not gone 
through the appropriations process or has seen their authorization 
expire.
  Thanks to provisions included in this package, it is my hope that 
each of our standing committees will make a better effort to address 
unauthorized programs and ensure that Congress is providing diligent 
oversight of the Federal bureaucracy.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people sent us to this body to make real 
changes on their behalf. We must adopt these rules today so that we can 
go about the people's business. I urge my colleagues to support these 
rules so the House can address the many important issues that await our 
attention so that we can all, each and every one of us, have real free 
speech.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from 
Alabama, as much as I appreciate his enthusiasm, what he is proposing 
here--and I say this to my dear friend from Texas as well--with respect 
to speech, is both unprecedented, unconstitutional, and unnecessary.
  It is unprecedented. You heard Representative Hoyer review this 
earlier. The Parliamentarian has researched this. Shame on this House 
of Representatives for imposing these kind of restrictions on its 
Members.
  It is unconstitutional because it directly violates Article I, 
section 6 of the Constitution where it specifically says, with respect 
to speech and debate, that those shouldn't be impeded in this House. 
And this rule does that.
  It also says, with respect to one's salary, which this rule 
specifically goes after, if you tamper with the salary, that can only 
be done through the law. It is in the Constitution. That requires both 
Chambers and the President to do that. That rule is blatant.
  What it does also is ignore hundreds of petitions from all across the 
country from people who only ask for a vote. And that is why this rule 
is unnecessary.
  All we have asked for is a vote.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee has a number of bright 
and able young, new members. One of them is a brand new member of our 
Republican leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the 
rules of the House for the 115th Congress. In fact, let's just look at 
it and say that this package benefited from thorough discussion within 
the Republican Conference. My colleagues' thoughtful debate 
strengthened this resolution, as we adopted cogent amendments offered 
by several members of our conference.
  As a member of the House Rules Committee, I have seen how strong, 
smart rules promote the effectiveness of this body as we work on behalf 
of 320 million Americans.
  The rules for the 115th Congress govern the House of Representatives, 
and

[[Page 49]]

this package also reminds us of our priority, our promises, and the 
hard work ahead of us. To that end, Republicans have outlined a plan 
that embraces commonsense policies that work for all Americans.
  Regulatory reform will strengthen our economy and get hardworking men 
and women back to work. A glut of regulatory burdens have made it 
harder for our families to make ends meet, but our plan and these rules 
will work to reverse that trend and to ensure that America remains the 
land where any person can turn their hopes, dreams, and ambitions into 
reality.
  Our priority is for our policies to reflect the values and the voice 
of the American people. This rules package helps us achieve that goal 
by calling for robust oversight plans for our committees, smarter 
budgeting and spending, and increases transparency throughout 
government.
  Therefore, this resolution works to make legislation easier for 
everyday Americans to access and understand. It also updates outdated 
policies so that our rules better reflect the realities of today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these rules. As we 
embark on a new Congress, it is critical that we begin under the 
guidance of documents that emphasize and improve our service to every 
American and move forward with a better future and a brighter tomorrow 
as we look forward to the proper role of this body.
  When we look to the role of this body, people are watching. Our voice 
is heard every day on this floor. For anyone to say different is just 
making a political show of a good set of rules.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 
5.
  This rules package contains a special provision exempting the 
Affordable Care Act from normal budget rules, giving the Republicans an 
easier path to repealing the Affordable Care Act without an 
alternative.
  The reason this exception is needed is because the regular budget 
process in the rule provides that, when legislation is passed which 
increases spending, it must be paid for to avoid increasing the 
deficit.
  ObamaCare actually saves money. Under the normal rule, repealing it 
would have to be paid for. The exception in the rule will allow for the 
repeal without offsetting the cost of that repeal, costing billions, 
possibly hundreds of billions to the deficit. And what do we get with a 
repeal?
  By the way, when they say ``repeal and replace,'' the only thing you 
can be sure of is the repeal part. If there were a viable alternative, 
we would have seen what that alternative looked like sometime in the 
last 6 years. But we have seen nothing.
  We do know what repeal would look like. Just some of the consequences 
would be tens of millions of people would lose insurance, employers 
would start dropping coverage, those with preexisting conditions would 
lose coverage or be charged a lot more, and a loss of consumer 
protections. It would hurt the Medicare trust fund. Because the 
solvency of the trust fund was extended under the Affordable Care Act, 
that process would be reversed. Billions would be added to the national 
debt.
  We should not facilitate that debacle by granting this exemption 
found in the rule, which would add billions to the deficit and 
jeopardize lifesaving insurance coverage for tens of millions of 
hardworking Americans.
  We should vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse), one of our bright, young members of the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, adopting the rules of the House is not a mundane 
exercise, but it is a critically important undertaking that will allow 
the new, unified Republican government to do the job the American 
people elected us to do.
  By adopting these rules, we can demonstrate that House Republicans 
are committed to enacting an agenda that will install conservative, 
free-market principles to grow our economy, restore prosperity, and 
increase opportunities for all Americans.
  H. Res. 5 takes important steps toward achieving these goals and will 
provide increased transparency, enhance accountability, and will build 
on past efforts by House Republicans to streamline the process. This is 
a fair package that will empower Members and allow all voices to be 
heard, regardless of status or seniority.
  The House should serve as a model for the rest of the country on the 
fair and equal treatment of all Americans, and this package eliminates 
outdated rules to adequately address the physical needs of all Members.
  Further, this package puts an impetus on congressional oversight, 
maintains decorum, slows the growth of unauthorized appropriations, 
ensures mechanisms are in place to control spending, reduces redundancy 
in the Federal Government, and lowers the national debt.
  Now is the time to lead the country out of years of historic economic 
stagnation, roll back years of job-killing regulations, return to a 
system of limited government, and reform the way Congress works.
  As we begin this Congress, I look forward to working with my House 
and Senate colleagues, the incoming President, and the American people 
to rein in a Federal bureaucracy, provide oversight to agencies, 
restore the proper separation of powers, and reestablish a ``government 
of the people, by the people, for the people.''
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Jeffries).
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, for 8 years, House Republicans have governed under the 
philosophy: obstruction today, obstruction tomorrow, obstruction 
forever.
  This irresponsible approach to governance has now resulted in a 
Republican hostile takeover here in Washington, DC. The culture of 
obstruction has ended, but the culture of destruction is just getting 
started. House Republicans plan to destroy Social Security, destroy 
Medicare, destroy the Affordable Care Act, destroy the social safety 
net, and destroy the ability of duly elected Members of the House of 
Representatives to vigorously engage in speech and debate in the 
people's House.
  This proposed set of rules is unfair, unjust, unacceptable, 
unconstitutional, and unconscionable. Every Member who truly cares 
about doing the people's business should vote it down.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a 
letter from dozens of legal scholars expressing their strong concerns 
with the language in H. Res. 5 that permits the Sergeant at Arms to 
punish and fine Members of the House.
                                                  January 3, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. 
         Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     The Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, 
         U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi, We write to 
     express our strong concerns regarding provisions in H. Res. 5 
     that would authorize the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of 
     Representatives to unilaterally punish and fine Members of 
     the House for certain alleged infractions without any action 
     by the full House. These provisions were apparently written 
     in response to the House Democrats' protest last year over 
     inaction on gun safety legislation. As constitutional and 
     legal experts with experience in academia, the Federal 
     courts, and Congress, we believe there are significant 
     constitutional and policy problems presented by the proposed 
     new provisions.
       If adopted, the new provisions would undermine core 
     constitutional protections under Article I of the 
     Constitution and the Bill of Rights. At a minimum, it would 
     seem that significant and controversial changes of this 
     nature would benefit from the input of

[[Page 50]]

     legal experts before being considered by the full House of 
     Representatives.
       Section 2 of the proposed rules package includes several 
     potentially problematic provisions. Under subsection (a), 
     clause 3 of House Rule II would be amended to provide that 
     the Sergeant-at-Arms ``is authorized and directed to impose a 
     fine against a Member . . . for the use of an electronic 
     device for still photography, audio or visual recording or 
     broadcasting . . .'' A fine for the first offense is set at 
     $500 and fines for second or subsequent offenses are set at 
     $2,500. A limited appeal of a fine is permitted to the 
     Committee on Ethics, however that appeal process does not 
     provide Members with recourse to a full vote of the House. 
     Subsection (a) would also amend clause 4 of Rule II to 
     require the Chief Administrative Officer to deduct the amount 
     of the fine from the Member's net salary, and amend rule XVII 
     to add a provision providing that a Member, officer or 
     employee of the House may not engage in ``disorderly or 
     disruptive conduct in the Chamber,'' which such conduct is 
     deemed subject to House Ethics Committee review. The 
     amendments also authorize the Speaker to issue further 
     announcements on electronic devices, and the Sergeant-at-
     Arms, the Committee on Ethics, and the Chief Administrative 
     Officer to establish implementing procedures and policies for 
     these rules changes.
       The changes would give an administrative officer the power 
     to do what no single Member of Congress could do--act alone 
     to punish and fine another Member. The unprecedented 
     delegation of systematic authority to assess fines to 
     officers of the House--in this case the Sergeant-at-Arms and 
     the Chief Administrative Officer--removes the power from 
     where it belongs: the Members themselves acting as a body. 
     Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution provides that ``Each 
     House may . . . punish its Members for disorderly Behavior,'' 
     and this power has always been exercised by the full House of 
     Representatives and never delegated to a single Member or 
     administrative officer. The Supreme Court held in Powell v. 
     McCormack, 395 U.S. 495 (1969) that this type of 
     constitutional authority cannot be used to abrogate other 
     parts of the Constitution.
       The unprecedented delegation of the House punishment power 
     to an administrative officer is designed to restrict activity 
     that is at the core of the First Amendment freedom of speech, 
     and the Members' rights under the Article I, Section 6 Speech 
     or Debate Clause. The rules would sharply limit the ability 
     of Members to video record proceedings on the House floor, 
     offending the spirit if not the text of these constitutional 
     requirements. In this regard, we would note that federal 
     courts have previously held there is a First Amendment right 
     to video record city council proceedings. The proposed new 
     rules include a number of potentially vague or overbroad 
     terms (e.g., ``use of an exhibit to impede'' and ``denial of 
     legislative instruments''), thereby implicating due process 
     concerns. The fact that the proposed rules were amended late 
     last evening to allow a limited appeal to the Ethics 
     Committee--a Committee equally divided on partisan lines--
     does not resolve our constitutional concerns with these 
     changes. This is because we are left with a process whereby 
     an administrative officer of the House has been empowered to 
     fine Members for speech-related activities, and the Member 
     has no recourse under the rules for consideration by the full 
     House.
       Nearly 70 years ago in Tenney v. Brandhove, the Court 
     quoted the writings of James Wilson to highlight the 
     importance of legislative immunity provided in the Speech or 
     Debate Clause: ```In order to enable and encourage a 
     representative of the public to discharge his public trust 
     with firmness and success, it is indispensably necessary, 
     that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that 
     he should be protected from the resentment of every one, 
     however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may 
     occasion offense.'''
       We believe the House of Representatives should heed these 
     words and tread very carefully before taking any action that 
     authorizes an administrative officer of the House to punish 
     Members of Congress for expressing themselves and informing 
     the public concerning actions being taken on the House floor.
       Thank you for your consideration of these views.

        (Titles are indicated for identification purposes only.)

       Jamie Raskin, Professor of Constitutional Law, American 
     University, Washington College of Law; Victoria F. Nourse, 
     Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center; Irvin B. 
     Nathan, Former General Counsel of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives; Timothy M. Westmoreland, Professor of Law 
     from Practice, Georgetown University Law Center; Charles 
     Gardner Geyh, John F. Kimberling Professor of Law, Maurer 
     School of Law; Malla Pollack, Former Visiting Assistant 
     Professor, University of Idaho, College of Law; Loftus 
     Becker, Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of 
     Law.
       Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and 
     Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School; Joe 
     Onek, Former Senior Counsel to the Speaker of the House and 
     Former Deputy White House Counsel; Steven R. Ross, Former 
     General Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives; Mark 
     Kende, James Madison Chair in Constitutional Law, Director, 
     Drake University, Constitutional Law Center; Mark A. Graber, 
     Regents Professor, University of Maryland Carey School of 
     Law; Janet Cooper Alexander, Frederick I. Richman Professor 
     of Law, Emerita Stanford Law School; Ira Lupu, F. Elwood & 
     Eleanor Davis, Professor of Law Emeritus, George Washington 
     University.
       Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, University of California, Irvine 
     School of Law; Norman Ornstein Congressional Scholar; Charles 
     Tiefer, Former General Counsel of the House of 
     Representatives Professor, University of Baltimore School of 
     Law; Dr. Neil H. Cogan, Professor of Law and Former Dean, 
     Whittier College School of Law; Paul Finkelman, John E. 
     Murray Visiting Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh 
     School of Law; Eric M. Freedman, Siggi B. Wilzig 
     Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Rights, Maurice A. 
     Deane School of Law at Hofstra University; Nancy L. 
     Rosenblum, Senator Joseph Clark Research Professor of Ethics 
     in Politics and Government, Harvard University.
       Ruthann Robson, Professor of Law and University 
     Distinguished Professor, City University of New York School 
     of Law; Stephen Loffredo, Professor of Law, City University 
     of New York School of Law; Lauren Sudeall Lucas, Assistant 
     Professor, Georgia State University College of Law; Julie 
     Seaman, Associate Professor of Law Emory University School of 
     Law; David B. Cruz, Professor of Law, University of Southern 
     California Gould School of Law.
       Sanford Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John 
     Garwood Jr. Centennial Chair in Law, University of Texas Law 
     School; Samuel Bagenstos, Frank G. Millard Professor of Law, 
     University of Michigan Law School; Peter M. Shane, Jacob E. 
     Davis & Jacob E. Davis II Chair in Law, The Ohio State 
     University, Moritz College of Law; Joseph P. Tomain, Dean 
     Emeritus and the Wilbert & Helen Ziegler Professor of Law, 
     University of Cincinnati College of Law; Suzianne D. Painter-
     Thorne, Associate Professor of Law, Mercer Law.
       Mike Steenson, Bell Distinguished Professor of Law, 
     Mitchell I Hamline School of Law; Deborah Pearlstein, 
     Associate Professor of Constitutional Law, Cardozo School of 
     Law; William D. Rich, Associate Professor of Law, The 
     University of Akron School of Law; Gregory P. Magarian, 
     Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis; M. 
     Isabel Medina, Professor of Law, Loyola University New 
     Orleans College of Law; Dakota S. Rudesill, Assistant 
     Professor, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University.

  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the 
majority in the House today. Why would you choose to open this session 
of this most democratic body, the people's House, by imposing punitive 
measures to gag debate and reduce accountability and transparency in 
our government?
  Many of you say it is outrage at the sit-in that has brought these 
rules. The sit-in was one demonstration, borne of frustration from the 
carnage that was going unanswered by the House majority, to plead, to 
take a vote on two commonsense, bipartisan bills. Is that so 
threatening that in response we have these draconian measures?
  The stunning silence of Republicans in this House in the face of the 
public health crisis of gun violence is now met with these 
unprecedented rules. We can both uphold our Constitution and give voice 
to the American people. These rules should be rescinded, and that is 
what we should do.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
H. Res. 5. House rule XVII is amended to add a new section, 9(a), which 
prohibits Members of Congress from committing ``disorderly or 
disruptive conduct'' and defines that conduct as ``intentionally 
obstructing or impeding the passage of others in the Chamber.''
  It seeks to prohibit John Lewis from leading a sit-in on the House 
floor; but this language is overbroad, and it is also lacking in 
sufficient definiteness or specificity and is, thus, unconstitutionally 
void for vagueness. A Democrat confined to a wheelchair could be found 
guilty of violating this rule. A vague rule that is incapable of 
enabling a person of ordinary intelligence to know how not to violate 
the rule lends itself to being arbitrarily and discriminatorily 
enforced. This rule

[[Page 51]]

doesn't even require that there be a victim whose passage within the 
House Chamber is obstructed or impeded.
  This body is better than this rule change, and I ask that the Members 
vote ``no'' on H. Res. 5.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Lewis) to discuss our motion to commit.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, not 
just my colleague but my classmate. We came to the Congress together in 
1987. I want to thank her for her leadership. I want to thank her for 
never giving up or giving in but for keeping the faith.
  Now, I don't come to the well that often, but I come because I 
remember reading someplace that Benjamin Franklin, a Founder of this 
Nation, once said, ``It is the first responsibility of every citizen to 
question authority,'' and he made sure the right to dissent is 
protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. So today I rise 
to question the right of House Republicans to institute fines which may 
violate the First Amendment and have a chilling effect on Members who 
disagree with the proceedings of this body.
  House leadership denied the will of the people to bring strong gun 
violence legislation to the floor. As a last resort, we staged a sit-in 
here in the well to give voice to their mandate. As Members of 
Congress, we have a sworn duty to speak up and to speak out if we do 
not believe the action of this body represents the will of all 
Americans.
  We should never, ever give up the right to protest for what is right, 
what is good, and what is necessary. We were elected to stand on the 
courage of our convictions. We were not sent here to run and hide. We 
must use our votes, our voices, and the power vested in us by the 
people of this Nation to speak the truth as we see it, regardless of 
the penalties.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I am not afraid of a fine. I have been fined 
before. Many of us have been fined before. During the 1960s, I was 
arrested and jailed 40 times, beaten, left bloody and unconscious on 
the march from Selma to Montgomery. But no Congress, nobody, no 
committee has the power to tell us that we cannot stand up, speak up, 
and speak truth to power. We have a right to dissent. We have a right 
to protest for what is right.
  Regardless of rule or no rule, we cannot and will not be silenced. At 
the end of this debate, I will offer a motion to strike the section 
that silences the call for gun violence prevention.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I also oppose this rule as an infringement on 
Members' rights to express themselves. The rule says that, if you take 
a photograph, the Sergeant at Arms can dock your pay and find you 
guilty without a hearing. Well, that is wrong. And the next step would 
be you can't take a sketch of what is happening and publish that 
sketch. And the next thing after that would be you can't take notes and 
repeat what is spoken in this House.
  This proposal is a direct response to John Lewis. Mr. Lewis is an 
American hero. He is the most heroic person to serve in this House 
maybe ever, and don't forget this is an attack on him for doing what he 
calls good trouble.
  When the civil rights law said African Americans couldn't vote, he 
went to Selma and he marched, and he was beaten and he was arrested. 
And he led his Democrats on the floor when we tried to find a way to 
get a vote through regular order on no fly, no buy. If you were a 
terrorist on the terrorist list, you could not get a gun. John Lewis is 
trying to protect America once again and taking to the floor of this 
House in protest.
  This is wrong. I support John Lewis. I applaud the gentleman for 
taking your ethics proposal and ditching it. It was the wrong optics 
and the wrong thing to do. This is, too.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader of whom we are 
extraordinarily proud.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I join our colleague Mr. Lewis in praising 
the gentlewoman's leadership as ranking member, formerly chair, of the 
Committee on Rules.
  It is an honor to serve in this House. Every day we step foot on the 
floor is an exciting moment because we have been sent here by our 
constituents to represent, as I said earlier, their hopes and their 
hurts. To serve with John Lewis is something beyond a privilege. To 
call him colleague is something that is an honor for all of us. To call 
him friend is a joy in our lives.
  I thank Mr. Lewis for his leadership on so many issues, but for 
speaking out so consistently on this public health issue of gun 
violence in our country, we could not be better served. When, in fact, 
the sit-in on the floor occurred under his leadership and with his 
inspiration, the leadership on the Republican side said it is a 
publicity stunt, and he replied: That is what they said the march on 
the Selma bridge was, a publicity stunt. It is not a publicity stunt. 
It is about conveying truth to the American people. And that is exactly 
what the Republican leadership does not want the American people to 
hear: the truth about obstacles to legislation coming to the floor that 
would reduce gun violence in our country.
  So here we are with this rule that has come to the floor that is 
outrageous in so many ways. Some ways are very esoteric and may mean 
nothing on first glance to the American people, but let me tell you a 
few things as to why you, as a person in our country, should be 
interested in what is happening on the floor today.
  You would expect that, after an election that was so hard fought and 
so focused on the economic security and stability of America's 
families, the first order of business would have been to say how can we 
find a bipartisan path to greater economic growth that creates jobs--
good-paying jobs--increases salaries, and contributes to the financial 
stability of America's working families, giving them the confidence 
that they will be able to buy a home, again address the aspirations of 
their children, whether that is at college or other training for the 
workforce, and also to retire with dignity.
  Instead, we come to the floor with, first, a proposal that was so 
outrageous that the Republicans even had to back off of it. Even the 
President-elect, Donald Trump, criticized the first actions of the 
Republicans in the House, so they backed off of that for the moment. 
For the moment they backed off their attempt to harm the way we deal 
with ethics violations in the Congress. We should be draining the 
swamp. They are backing off.
  I am here because we are talking about, again, a big public health 
issue: gun violence in our country. When Members of Congress spoke and 
the response from the public was so great, Republicans decided that, in 
this rule today, they would do something so outrageous. It is a 
violation of freedom of speech on the House floor. It is an insult to 
the intelligence of the American people that they should not be able to 
hear this. It violates the Constitution by saying the Sergeant at Arms 
can take money out of your salary if he doesn't like your behavior on 
the floor. It is absolutely ridiculous.
  But our distinguished colleague from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) has spoken, 
as have others spoken to that point. I want to just go to another 
point, and it is a health issue as well, and that is what every family 
in America should be concerned about what is happening in this rules 
package today.
  I recently heard over the weekend from my friend that a grandchild of 
that family was diagnosed with leukemia--3 years old, diagnosed with 
leukemia. What does that mean and what

[[Page 52]]

does this rule mean to that child's life? Well, this rule is a setup to 
overturn the Affordable Care Act. What the Affordable Care Act is doing 
for that child is to say you cannot be discriminated against because 
you have a preexisting medical condition, which that child will have 
for life. Insurance companies cannot have limits on your annual or 
lifetime limits on what kind of benefits you can receive--you are 3 
years old, a whole lifetime of benefits. Up until you are 26 years old, 
you can be on your parents' policy. That would be eliminated as well. 
The issues go on and on and on that would affect that child.
  If that child's grandparent is on Medicare, that family is affected, 
too, because, in this legislation, there is a provision that would harm 
Medicare by changing from mandatory to discretionary.

                              {time}  1615

  Inside baseball, I know. But when you realize that the Republican 
budget has a provision in it to take away the guarantee of Medicare and 
say to seniors, you are on your own, you have a voucher, you are on 
your own, now this family is being assaulted at the earliest years--3 
years old. Medicare, in the meantime, for grandparents.
  In between, it is important to note the following about the 
Affordable Care Act. While we talk a great deal and with great pride 
about the fact that 20 million Americans have received health benefits 
now, have health insurance now because of the Affordable Care Act, we 
are very proud of that. It is a wonderful thing, but it is only a part 
of the picture.
  Seventy-five percent of the American people get their health 
insurance through the workplace. One hundred percent of them have 
increased benefits because of the Affordable Care Act. One hundred 
percent of them have a rate of growth of the cost of health care 
greatly diminished--the lowest rate of increase in over 50 years that 
they have measured these rates of growth.
  So if it is a question of access, if it is a question of quality of 
care, if it is a question of cost, the Affordable Care Act has been a 
magnificent success.
  Can we do better?
  We always like to see implementation and how we can do better, and we 
thought we could work in a bipartisan way to do that. But the fact is 
that either the Republicans do not understand what this means in the 
lives of America's families or do not care about what it means in that 
regard, that they just want to repeal.
  They say repeal and replace. Repeal and replace has one thing going 
for it--alliteration. Beyond that, it has nothing going for it, because 
they would never even be able to get the votes to repeal and replace 
the Affordable Care Act. It is just not possible. That is why they 
don't have a replacement.
  Do you want to know why they don't have a replacement?
  They don't have the votes for a replacement.
  Then they say repeal and delay.
  Delay? For how long?
  Delay is probably one of the most cowardice actions they could take 
because it says: We don't know, but we know that it would be harmful to 
our politics if people lose their benefits or their costs go up, so we 
will just delay the impact of our irresponsible action of repealing.
  So we have before us the makings of this bombshell of a rule that 
undermines the health and economic security of America's working 
families in so many respects. You certainly will be hearing more from 
us about every aspect of it, whether it is lifetime limits. Oh, we are 
going to keep no preexisting conditions. You are? At what cost and to 
whom? We would like to see that proposal. So far we haven't. So for 
many reasons that are, as I say, too inside baseball to go into.
  Think about your own life, you out there who said: Keep your 
government hands off of my Medicare. They want to put their hands not 
only on your Medicare, but to squeeze the guarantee right out of it, 
the lifeblood of what Medicare is, a guarantee.
  They want to block grant Medicaid. Do you understand that if you have 
a senior in your family who is in need of long-term health care, 
whether it is because of one physical disability or another and some 
related to dementia and Alzheimer's, at least 50 percent of the 
benefits of Medicaid go to long-term health care?
  So families in America who want them to overturn the Affordable Care 
Act and all that that means for Medicare and Medicaid and their budget 
to boot, you are going to have Mom and Dad, as Richard Neal says, 
living in your house. You are going to be taking care of them right 
then and there. That may be a welcome sense of community to you or it 
may not. It may deprive you of opportunity that you want to provide for 
your children because of an ideological view of Republicans that we 
should not have Medicaid and Medicare, which are pillars of economic 
security in our families.
  The very idea that in this bill they want to take mandatory money and 
turn it into discretionary money, subjecting it to the will of the 
Congress in terms of appropriations, says that they have their eye on 
Social Security as well. So be very, very vigilant, be very, very 
aware. I don't want you to be very, very scared, but there is reason to 
be if the Republicans work their will based on the blueprint that they 
have both in this bill, this rules package they are bringing to the 
floor, as well as what they have in their budget.
  Even their nominee for President, Donald Trump, has disassociated 
himself--in the campaign anyway--from what they want to do to Medicare 
and Social Security and the rest. We will see how that holds up as we 
go forward. But you can be sure that the Democrats will have a big, 
bright, relentless spotlight on what is happening here because of what 
it means to you out there and your families, whether it is a child who 
is sick, a worker who gets benefits in the workplace which now will be 
diminished, or a senior citizen who relies on Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security.
  There is a lot at stake. There is an ideological difference between 
Democrats and Republicans on these issues. I would hope that these 
issues would go away and that the public would weigh in in such a 
significant way that the Republicans would back off, as they backed off 
this morning when they chickened out on their very bad proposal 
relating to ethics.
  In order for the American people to weigh in, they have to know, 
which takes us back to what Mr. Lewis was talking about--they have to 
know. If it is the determination of this body that the Sergeant at Arms 
can effectively silence the voice of Members on the floor deducting a 
penalty from their paycheck, which is totally unconstitutional--but I 
guess that doesn't matter to the devotees of the Constitution that what 
they are doing is unconstitutional--then how will the public know?
  There is a method to this madness. It is not just about the sit-in on 
guns. As Mr. Cohen mentioned, it is about what other ways they will 
deprive us of communicating with the American people about what is at 
stake for them, America's working families, by actions taken on this 
floor.
  I urge my colleagues, of course, to vote ``no,'' a thousand times 
``no'' on this legislation, but also to continue the fight that will 
unfold if it becomes the new rules of the House.
  It is a very unfortunate day. We should be starting with a big jobs 
package for America's working families, not threatening their financial 
stability by undermining what they have paid into, systems that they 
have paid into, now being subjected to the whims of an ideological 
majority.
  Again, I urge a ``no'' vote. I thank, again, our colleague, Mr. 
Lewis, for his extraordinary leadership over time and up to the minute 
today, and I look forward to following his lead as we go forward.
  I thank the gentlewoman (Ms. Slaughter), our ranking member, for her 
leadership as well.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

[[Page 53]]


  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule because of what it does 
to Federal employees and to the rights of the elected Members of this 
body.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rules for the 115th Congress 
proposed by the Majority.
  This rules package ushers in a new era of unified Republican 
government.
  One in which facts--when inconvenient--do not matter and ethics are 
subject to the interpretation of the Majority.
  Freedom of speech--a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution--has 
been redefined and curtailed by this resolution to accommodate the 
Majority's crackdown on dissent.
  Under a unified Republican government, witch hunts against federal 
employees and the agencies for which they work are empowered and 
encouraged.
  The President-elect has already engaged in a stunning overreach 
during his transition by demanding the names of federal employees and 
scientists who have worked on projects he dislikes.
  We know the Majority would like to gut the functionality of the 
federal government. The dangerous and indiscriminate cuts of 
Sequestration are evidence enough of that.
  However, this rules package provides them with the surgical tools 
necessary to reach into the inner workings of the federal government 
and cut away each part and employee that runs afoul of their 
ideological agenda.
  I will oppose this resolution, and I cannot see how anyone who calls 
themselves a friend to federal employees could support the Majority's 
proposed rules for the 115th Congress.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I include in the Record a description of the many troubling 
Republican rules changes in H. Res. 5.

       H. Res. 5, the House rules package for the 115th Congress, 
     contains a number of troubling provisions. Most concerning is 
     that instead of taking action to address the gun violence 
     epidemic, Republicans have responded to the Democratic sit-in 
     of last June by instituting an offensive and possibly 
     unconstitutional gag rule to punish Members who violate the 
     rules on decorum. H. Res. 5 authorizes the Sergeant-at-Arms 
     to fine Members for the use of photographic and audio or 
     visual recording devices on the floor. Fines are set at $500 
     for a first offense and $2,500 for each subsequent offense 
     and the Chief Administrative Officer is instructed to deduct 
     such fines from the Member's salary. The resolution also 
     makes ``disorderly or disruptive conduct'' in the Chamber an 
     offense for which Members and staff can be referred to the 
     Ethics Committee. There are serious constitutional questions 
     concerning whether fines can be deducted from Members' pay, 
     and whether the House can delegate the responsibility of 
     punishing Members to House officers, but most importantly 
     this change has the potential to have a chilling effect that 
     would silence the Minority party and the millions of 
     constituent they represent.
       H. Res. 5 will also dramatically expand the Republican 
     Majority's investigative powers, giving nearly every 
     committee the ability to haul private citizens to Washington 
     to be deposed by Republican staffers. After spending six 
     years demonstrating their eagerness to spend taxpayer money 
     on wasteful, politically-motivated witch hunts, Republicans 
     are giving themselves additional tools to do more of the 
     same. The rules package gives every committee (except Rules 
     and House Administration) the ability to force private 
     citizens to travel to Washington, DC and be subjected to 
     unlimited hours of interrogation by Republican staff. 
     Republicans have expanded committees' investigative powers 
     over the last six years, but even last Congress gave staff 
     deposition authority to only five standing committees. In 
     this rules package, for the first time ever, Republicans are 
     removing entirely any requirement that Members be present 
     during such depositions (unless the House is in session), 
     making it much more likely that depositions will be lengthy 
     and numerous. Freely handing out the power to compel any 
     American to appear, sit in a room, and answer staff's 
     invasive questions on the record is truly unprecedented, 
     unwarranted, and offensive. Note that due to the Majority's 
     use of this authority to intimidate potential witnesses 
     during the 114th Congress, the ranking members of the 
     relevant committees requested that this authority not be 
     extended at the end of the first session.
       Democrats are also troubled that H. Res. 5's expansion of 
     staff deposition authority and delegation of Member 
     punishment to a House officer represent a disturbing trend of 
     giving to staff powers that ought to be, and have 
     traditionally been, exercised by Members.
       This rules package also includes a worrisome requirement 
     that each standing committee (except for Appropriations, 
     Ethics, and Rules) include in its oversight plans 
     recommendations for moving programs from mandatory to 
     discretionary funding. This would begin the process of 
     dismantling the guaranteed funding mechanisms for vital 
     safety net programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and 
     Medicaid and expose these programs to the uncertainties of 
     the annual appropriations process--something the Majority has 
     been trying to accomplish for years.
       With H. Res. 5's reinstatement of the so-called ``Holman 
     Rule,'' Republicans are unfairly targeting Federal employees. 
     The Holman Rule, which was largely removed from the standing 
     rules in 1983, permits provisions in and amendments to 
     general appropriations bills that reduce the number of 
     Federal employees, or reduce the salary of any Federal 
     employee. Since 1983, such provisions and amendments have 
     been out of order, as they constitute ``legislating on an 
     appropriations bill.'' Reinstating this rule represents yet 
     another effort by the Republican Majority to scapegoat 
     Federal employees, make cuts to the Federal workforce, and 
     politicize the civil service system that was established to 
     professionalize agencies and offices. Moreover, in light of 
     the President-Elect's transition team asking agencies to 
     ``name names'' of Federal employees who have implemented 
     policies with which Republicans disagree, perhaps most 
     worrisome is the potential use of the Holman Rule to 
     persecute career employees for doing their jobs during the 
     Obama Administration.
       H. Res. 5 also intentionally hides the cost of repealing 
     the Affordable Care Act (ACA), by preemptively waiving the 
     Majority's own long-term direct spending point of order for 
     any ACA repeal legislation. The rules package extends a point 
     of order against considering legislation that would increase 
     direct spending by $5 billion or more in any of the four 10-
     year periods following the decade after passage of the 
     legislation. Repealing the ACA will result in increased 
     direct spending and would very likely violate this long-term 
     spending point of order, so H. Res. 5 includes a carve-out 
     exempting ACA repeal legislation from the point of order 
     entirely. On top of that, H. Res. 5 permits the Budget Chair 
     to apply this waiver to any other legislation she wishes.
       Similar to the provision waiving the budgetary point of 
     order against legislation repealing the ACA, an amendment to 
     H. Res. 5 was adopted late last night that continues the 
     Republican practice of disregarding fiscal responsibility by 
     requiring the House to ignore the fiscal effects of the sale 
     or transfer of Federal land to a State, local government, or 
     tribal entity. While this rule was included to simplify the 
     process for authorizing the transfer of land, and would also 
     apply to instances when direct spending decreases, it is 
     irresponsible to authorize such a sale or transfer without 
     knowing its total cost.
       Democrats also find H. Res. 5's change to the rules to make 
     it easier for the Majority to continue its wasteful, 
     taxpayer-funded lawsuits in future Congresses very 
     unfortunate. The rules package takes the unprecedented step 
     of providing blanket authority for the House, Speaker, or a 
     committee chair to carry forward any litigation from the 
     previous Congress. Previous rules packages listed specific 
     matters to be carried over, ensuring a level of transparency 
     and review that will be absent following this rules change 
     This change will ultimately permit the Majority to more 
     easily shield its abuse of the legal process from public 
     scrutiny.
       H. Res. 5 also includes several rules changes that, while 
     not necessarily problematic on their face, have the potential 
     to be abused by the Majority. First, H. Res. 5 allows the 
     Majority to postpone votes on the motion to recommit by 
     adding such motions, as well as motions to concur, to the 
     list of questions that can be postponed for up to two 
     legislative days under clause 8 of rule XX. This same 
     authority already exists for many other questions and is 
     typically used for time management. Although this may be 
     useful in coordinating the timing of floor votes with 
     Members' schedules, it could be used by the Majority to 
     postpone votes on Democratic priorities if they are concerned 
     about losing a vote.
       Second, the rules package explicitly states that records 
     ``created, generated, or received'' by Members' personal 
     offices are the personal property of the individual Members 
     and, unlike Committee materials, are not records of the 
     House. While this is a codification of a longstanding policy, 
     the rule change could be exploited by the Majority to store 
     materials in Member offices in order to circumvent 
     requirements that they share House records with the Minority. 
     This was a concern in the 114th Congress, for example, in 
     relation to the Republicans' Planned Parenthood 
     investigation. Moreover, this change could lend legitimacy to 
     a defeated Member's decision to refuse to hand over 
     constituent casework files to his or her successor, which 
     appears to have happened last year.
       Democrats will monitor the Majority's implementation of 
     these new rules to ensure they are used to assist in the 
     effective operation of the House and not to prevent Members 
     of the Minority Party from representing and serving their 
     constituents.
       Finally, Democrats were very concerned with the Republican 
     Conference's adoption of an amendment to the Rules package 
     late last night that would have stripped the Office of

[[Page 54]]

     Congressional Ethics (OCR) of its independence by placing it 
     under the authority of the Ethics Committee, thereby 
     eliminating its role as an effective Congressional watchdog. 
     It would have effectively gutted the OCE by prohibiting it 
     from investigating anonymous complaints, prohibiting it from 
     having a press secretary or from talking to the press at any 
     time, requiring OCE to refer criminal complaints directly to 
     the Ethics Committee, and allowing the Ethics Committee to 
     stop any OCE investigation at any time.
       The OCE was created in 2008 to investigate allegations 
     against Members of Congress, following years of scandal that 
     tarnished this institution. It was intentionally set up as an 
     independent body to ensure that it was able to conduct proper 
     investigations free from political influences and favoritism. 
     Disciplinary actions against Members have increased 
     substantially since the OCE's creation, because there is now 
     finally an office not run by Members of Congress 
     investigating allegations against Members. Independent 
     Inspector General offices ensure accountability in the 
     Executive Branch and the House should be held to the same 
     standard. This is why the top ethics lawyers to both 
     Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have strongly 
     condemned the Republican effort to gut the OCE.
       In attempting to implement this rules change, Republicans 
     showed their true colors. While we are pleased that the 
     public outcry and negative attention from the media forced 
     Republicans to backtrack this morning and leave the OCE 
     intact, it is disturbing that Republicans' first instinct was 
     to weaken rather than strengthen the House's ethics rules.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, in closing, we will continue to fight, as 
our leader said, with all of the tools that we have. We may not be able 
to do much in Congress until we get to court, but we will not be 
silenced.
  We invite you to bring regular order back to this House and to bring 
back the barrel of ideas. And always remember that because you shut out 
the number of Congresspersons from being a part of what is happening 
here, that you are shutting out the voices of over half of the American 
public. Remember, too, that we did get a million more votes in the 
election previous to this one than you did, and we deserve to speak. 
Anyway, I want to make that as clear as I can.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and ``no'' on the 
motion to commit, and ``no'' on the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, for showing up 
today, not only for expressing their views. The Democrat majority 
certainly did show up and give us lots of things to think about, which 
is good. The new year deserves an opportunity for us to hear some of 
their thoughts and ideas. I will tell you that it went across the 
board.
  I am still stunned that Republicans are blamed for the failures of 
ObamaCare when, in fact, it is ObamaCare that we are going to amend and 
we are going to change. Many of the people who came to the floor of the 
House today know that hundreds--well, tens of hundreds of children's 
hospitals across the country won't take ObamaCare. Stanford University 
School of Medicine in California does not take ObamaCare.
  It is a discriminatory system. It is a system that does not work. It 
is a system where you might find a doctor, but no referral. It is a 
system that is bleeding the life out of businesses and jobs in this 
country. Yes, we do address that in the rules package. But what we 
really address in the rules package is an opportunity to streamline the 
procedures on rules and regulations and our ability to effectively do 
the work with the consent of the American people. You heard three of my 
Rules colleagues who very carefully and ably worked through some of the 
intricacies of the rules package.
  Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, as every Member of this body 
attempts to gain a voice and to be heard, it will be done in an open 
and fair way; but there will be decorum attached to that because 
decorum comes with avoiding chaos. What has always allowed this body to 
be different from any other body in the world is the discipline of 
rules and order and procedures, mutual respect for each other, the 
opportunity to hear and be heard, but, really, the opportunity with an 
open process, a process that is given to the minority and one that is 
given to the majority.
  Any rule that has been promulgated in this body is not done on a 
partisan basis because, see, my majority has people who disagree with 
necessarily some in our party, too. We did not try and stop anybody 
from voicing what they would voice, but a rule of decorum has been 
placed upon that. That is what separates this body from any other 
bodies in the world, and that is what will continue to gain the 
admiration of not only the American people, but people around the 
world. It is something that I cherish and I believe that must happen.
  Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman. I will yield 
to him in just a moment.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today is we are presenting openly 
the package giving an equal amount of time to Democrats as we do with 
Republicans. In the Rules Committee, we open ourselves up and hear from 
Democrats all the time.
  I know you heard that we offer no amendments. Of course, that is not 
true. As a matter of fact, on any given week when we were in session, 
we offered more amendments in the Rules Committee than Harry Reid did 
in several years of being in the United States Senate to Republicans. 
We are a body that works and tries to work well and we try to be fair.
  With everything that has been said today, I take it as a challenge on 
myself to try to work even better and closer with my colleagues to 
listen and to allow them to be heard. It is something that we have 
tried to do for a number of years.

                              {time}  1630

  Evidently, the gentleman from Tennessee wishes to engage me.
  Does the gentleman have a question?
  Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. Under the rule, if I took a still photograph of just an 
individual--of a friend--on the floor, would it not come under the rule 
that the Sergeant at Arms would then be directed to fine me $500 even 
though there was no question about decorum being in jeopardy?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in reclaiming my time, I would like to 
read to the gentleman what is the statement:

       The use of personal electronic footage not only breaches 
     decorum but provides an avenue to exploit official business 
     for political and personal gain.

  If that is personal gain, it would not be allowed.

       House video footage can be used for news or public affairs 
     programs but is prohibited from being used for commercial or 
     political purposes.

  I would encourage the gentleman, as I would if this were a speeding 
violation or something else--we have lots of people who are members of 
the Sergeant at Arms--to go grab your favorite individuals with the 
Sergeant at Arms and review with them the things which you believe 
would be in the context of how that Member would come in. Inasmuch as 
just a picture would be taken, they may say, ``but not with a flash.'' 
If it were disruptive, then I would consider that to be a violation. If 
it were taken in the back and with no one else around, I can't tell the 
gentleman as I am not the officer in charge of that; but they are 
trained in this, and they have been trained very well.
  I do appreciate the gentleman's asking. I would suggest that the 
gentleman ask that question based upon his own usage.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this package.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 
5, the Rules Package for the 115th Congress, because it will require 
unprecedented changes to the Standing Rules and cost the American 
people countless dollars through direct spending and drastic and 
unnecessary deficit increase.
  I am deeply concerned by House Republicans' decision in the dead of 
night to strip

[[Page 55]]

away the voices of Members echoing the constitutionally protected 
concerns of their constituents and hide the true cost of their shameful 
attempts at repealing the Affordable Care Act.
  This disturbing change contained in the Rules package has never been 
implemented in the House.
  The most troubling Republican Rules Changes in H. Res. 5 include:
  (1) Punishment of Members (sec. 2(a), pp. 2-31)--These changes are 
unprecedented in the House of Representatives and are clearly being 
enacted in response to the gun violence sit-in.
  Instead of taking action to address the epidemic of gun violence in 
this country, House Republicans in a potentially unconstitutional way 
are silencing democratically elected Members of Congress and preventing 
them from expressing the views and wishes of their constituents by 
instituting offensive and possibly unconstitutional new mechanisms for 
punishing Members who supposedly violate the rules on decorum.
  (2) Hiding the Cost of Repealing the Affordable Care Act--(sec. 3(h), 
pp. 22-24)--Aware that repealing the Affordable Care Act will increase 
direct spending and the deficit, Republicans preemptively waive their 
own long-term direct spending point of order for ACA repeal 
legislation.
  President-Elect Trump and the Republican Majority have promised to 
repeal the Affordable Care Act, even though such repeal would 
significantly increase the deficit and directly affect millions of 
Americans.
  In order to move forward with repealing the ACA, House Republicans 
are preemptively waiving their own long-term direct spending point of 
order.
  Trust in our institutions, including Congress, is already at record 
lows.
  Worsening the damage they are doing to the House as an institution, 
the Republicans have proposed this change without any hearings or input 
from Democratic Members late in the evening, less than twenty-four 
hours before it would be voted on.
  H. Res. 5 authorizes the Sergeant-at-Arms to impose fines on Members 
for use of photographic, audio or visual recording devices on the 
floor.
  Fines are set at $500 for a first offense and $2,500 for each 
subsequent offense.
  The Chief Administrative Officer is instructed to deduct such fines 
from the Member's salary.
  There are serious constitutional questions concerning whether fines 
can be deducted from Members' pay, and whether the House can delegate 
the responsibility of punishing Members to House officers.
  The resolution also makes ``disorderly or disruptive conduct'' in the 
Chamber an offense for which Members and staff can be referred to the 
Ethics Committee.
  The potential chilling effect of these rules changes raises serious 
First Amendment concerns.
  The Rules package makes another dangerous and unprecedented change to 
the House rules by introducing H. Res. 5, which extends a point of 
order against considering legislation that would increase direct 
spending by $5 billion or more in any of the four 10-year periods 
following the decade after passage of the legislation.
  Despite the widely acknowledged fact that repeal of the ACA would 
result in increased direct spending, H. Res. 5 also includes a 
preemptive waiver of this point of order for any legislation repealing 
or reforming the ACA.
  The resolution also gives the chair of the Budget Committee the power 
to apply this waiver to any other legislation she or he wishes.
  House Republicans could have found willing partners among Democrats 
to increase transparency and renew faith in government through 
bipartisan action, including making possible improvements to the Office 
of Congressional Ethics and the way Congress polices itself and 
maintains the highest standards of integrity among its Members.
  Instead they chose this shameful move, which is an indication of 
their priorities for the new Congress.
  When House Republicans take steps to decrease accountability and make 
it harder to reveal partisan driven and unethical behavior, the public 
ought to question why.
  House Democrats will continue to fight for the strongest possible 
ethical standards for our nation's elected leaders.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

     An Amendment to H. Res. 5 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of section 2, add the following new subsection:
       (u) Restrictions on Consideration of Certain Legislative 
     Provisions Relating to Health Care.--Rule XXI of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new clause:
       ``12. (a) It shall not be in order to consider a bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, or conference report which 
     includes any provision described in paragraph (b).
       ``(b) A provision described in this paragraph is a 
     provision which, if enacted into law, would result in any of 
     the following:
       ``(1) The denial of health insurance coverage to 
     individuals on the basis that such individuals have a 
     preexisting condition or a requirement for individuals with a 
     preexisting condition to pay more for premiums on the basis 
     of such individuals having such a preexisting condition.
       ``(2) The elimination of the prohibition on life time 
     limits on the dollar value of health insurance coverage 
     benefits.
       ``(3) The termination of the ability of individuals under 
     26 years of age to be included on their parent's employer or 
     individual health coverage.
       ``(4) The reduction in the number of people receiving 
     health plan coverage pursuant to the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act.
       ``(5) An increased cost to seniors for prescription drug 
     coverage pursuant to any changes to provisions closing the 
     Medicare prescription drug `donut hole'.
       ``(6) The requirement that individuals pay for preventive 
     services, such as for mammography, health screening, and 
     contraceptive services.
       ``(7) The reduction of Medicare solvency or any changes to 
     the Medicare guarantee.
       ``(8) The reduction of Federal taxes on the 1 percent of 
     the population with the highest income or increase the tax 
     burden (expressed as a percent of aggregate Federal taxes) on 
     the 80 percent of the population with the lowest income.
       ``(c) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order 
     that waives the application of paragraph (a) or paragraph 
     (b). As disposition of a point of order under this paragraph, 
     the Chair shall put the question of consideration with 
     respect to the rule or order, as applicable. The question of 
     consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member 
     initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an 
     opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening 
     motion except one that the House adjourn.''.

        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 Carillon'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

[[Page 56]]

     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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237, 
nays 193, not voting 3, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 4]

                               YEAS--237

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--193

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman
       Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Mulvaney
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)

                              {time}  1658

  Messrs. PALAZZO and ZINKE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Lewis of Georgia moves that the resolution (H. Res. 5) 
     be committed to a select committee composed of the Majority 
     Leader and the Minority Leader with instructions to report it 
     forthwith back to the House with the following amendment:
       Strike subsection (a) of section 2 (and redesignate the 
     succeeding subsections accordingly).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to commit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193, 
nays 236, not voting 4, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 5]

                               YEAS--193

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton

[[Page 57]]


     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Mulvaney
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rohrabacher


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). The Chair would ask 
Members to observe proper decorum within the Chamber.

                              {time}  1716

  Mr. NUNES changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to commit was rejected.
  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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 193, not voting 6, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 6]

                               YEAS--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Beutler
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--193

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty
     Evans
     Foster
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko

[[Page 58]]


     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Frankel (FL)
     Mulvaney
     Perlmutter
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom (GA)
     Rush

                              {time}  1734

  Mr. ZINKE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________