[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14972-14977]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2824, INCREASING OPPORTUNITY AND 
 SUCCESS FOR CHILDREN AND PARENTS THROUGH EVIDENCE-BASED HOME VISITING 
    ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2792, CONTROL UNLAWFUL 
          FUGITIVE FELONS ACT OF 2017; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 533 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 533

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2824) to amend title V of the Social Security 
     Act to extend the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home 
     Visiting Program. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
     the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 115-33. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2792) to amend 
     the Social Security Act to make certain revisions to 
     provisions limiting payment of benefits to fugitive felons 
     under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the Social Security Act. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  In the engrossment of H.R. 2824 the Clerk shall--
        (a) add the text of H.R. 2792, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 2824;
       (b) conform the title of H.R. 2824 to reflect the addition 
     of H.R. 2792, as passed by the House, to the engrossment;
       (c) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (d) conform cross-references and provisions for short 
     titles within the engrossment.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. 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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 533 provides for the 
consideration of two bills which were reported by the House Ways and 
Means Committee.
  For the first bill, H.R. 2792, the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons 
Act of 2017, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means. The rule waives all points of order and makes in order no 
further amendments to the legislation. However, the minority is 
afforded the customary motion to recommit.
  For H.R. 2824, the Increasing Opportunity and Success for Children 
and Parents through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act, the rule provides 
for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The Rules Committee made in 
order four amendments to H.R. 2824, one Republican amendment, two 
Democratic amendments, and one bipartisan amendment. Finally, the rule 
provides for the customary motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  H.R. 2792, the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act of 2017, amends 
the Social Security Act to give the Social Security Administration the 
necessary tools to prevent Federal benefits and payments from being 
made to persons who are actually on the run from the law.
  Many people might hear this and think: Why would the government ever 
continue to pay someone who is actively fleeing from law enforcement?
  It is a legitimate question, and it has an unfortunate answer.
  In 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act into law. One major provision of 
this reform bill was a restriction on the ability of fugitive felons 
and probation and parole violators from receiving Social Security 
benefits.

                              {time}  1230

  Similar provisions have been included in other Federal entitlement 
programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and 
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. This policy was 
expanded in 2004, with the passage of the Social Security Protection 
Act.
  However, subsequent to the passage of these commonsense reforms, 
several judges in cases from the mid-2000s ruled that the Social 
Security Administration's interpretation of these provisions was too 
broad and limited the Social Security Administration's ability to 
curtail payments to three narrow categories of fugitives, namely: 
escape, flight to avoid prosecution or confinement, and flight escape.
  The bill before the House today, H.R. 2792, would restore Congress' 
original intent to the reforms passed under both Presidents Clinton and 
George W. Bush. Specifically, H.R. 2792 would prohibit an individual 
who is the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant for a felony or 
parole violation from receiving monthly Social Security income 
payments. This applies only to felony charges or a crime carrying a 
minimum term of 1 year or more in prison.
  This legislation would not punish individuals convicted of a 
misdemeanor, such as outstanding parking tickets. In fact, some people 
have falsely claimed that.
  Individuals who have potentially committed a felony or a parole 
violation should not be able to use taxpayer dollars to evade capture. 
Providing the Social Security Administration with the tools in H.R. 
2792 is a commonsense way to show that the Federal Government is 
sincere in its commitment to being a good steward of Federal taxpayer 
dollars. The Social Security benefits can be restored once the 
individual resolves the outstanding issues related to his or her 
warrant or parole violation.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from South Dakota, Kristi Noem, for

[[Page 14973]]

her work on this legislation, and I urge Members of the House to 
support this worthy bill.
  The second bill in today's rule, H.R. 2824, the Increasing 
Opportunity Through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act, extends funding 
for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, 
which is more commonly referred to as MIECHV.
  The Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program is an 
important program that provides low-income families with opportunities 
to receive home-visiting services to help support a child's first 
years. These services range from prenatal care to early childhood 
services and allow for children to grow up in healthy homes.
  As not only a physician but a physician who specialized in obstetrics 
and gynecology, I did spend 25 years working with pregnant women and 
families to help ensure that all mothers could deliver and raise 
healthy children. As an OB/GYN, I know the best way to ensure that a 
child succeeds is to invest in long-term services and to ensure that 
the child receives access to appropriate care.
  Because of the Nurse-Family Partnership's work, 90 percent of all 
babies who are supported by the organization are born full term, 95 
percent of those babies receive all their immunizations by 24 months, 
and nearly 89 percent of those mothers breastfeed their newborns.
  These are important milestones for newborn children that can have 
lasting impacts on their health for the rest of their lives, and it is 
important that we support initiatives that support vital, lifesaving 
programs like these.
  Furthermore, the program succeeds by not only supporting the health 
and well-being of children, but by supporting pregnant women and 
mothers as well. In my home State of Texas, the reported incidence of 
maternal mortality has increased in recent years, in part, as the State 
has collected more comprehensive data on causes of death up to a year 
after childbirth.
  While no amount of maternal mortality is ever acceptable, the new 
data has shown us that the causes for maternal mortality in the State 
have shifted away from those traditional acute cases that I was 
familiar with during my residency back in the 1970s. There were 
illnesses such as pregnancy-induced hypertension, hemorrhage, and 
infection during pregnancy. Now it is different. We have cardiac 
disease, suicide, and opioid overdose, which oftentimes occurs in the 
months after childbirth.
  By supporting children in their first years, MIECHV can not only help 
children live healthy lives, but help mothers live healthy lives as 
well, so that they can continue to be there for their children.
  The MIECHV Program and organizations like the Nurse-Family 
Partnership succeed because they identify families in need that do not 
have readily available care and work to provide services in home 
settings.
  Families cannot raise healthy children without access to care. When 
families cannot find providers in their area, MIECHV grant recipients 
are there to provide that support.
  H.R. 2824 builds upon the successes of the MIECHV Program by 
tailoring the program to ensure that it can continue to help families 
that truly need the help.
  For example, H.R. 2824 requires for States receiving MIECHV grants to 
conduct statewide needs assessments by 2020, in order to reaffirm which 
populations and communities should receive these services. The last 
time such an assessment was required was in 2010.
  As the needs of populations of States have evolved over these past 10 
years, so should the program as well. It is important to ensure that 
tax dollars continue to be invested efficiently, and this bill ensures 
that MIECHV can continue to do so.
  Additionally, H.R. 2824 provides additional opportunities for States 
to promote quality and enhanced outcomes. The bill updates the program 
by allowing for States to promote models that will have greater impact 
on multiple sites and locations, thus expanding the reach of grants and 
providing States with the opportunity to reimburse grant recipients 
based on the quality and outcomes associated with their programs.
  I certainly want to thank members of the Ways and Means Committee for 
the work they have put into this bill. It is a smart bill that 
continues a Federal program for low-income families that actually has 
evidence of its effectiveness and, furthermore, links future funding to 
the assurance of greater cost-effectiveness.
  This program serves as a model for Federal programs to help low-
income families and children. I want to thank Chairman Smith and 
Chairman Brady for their efforts on this bill.
  For these reasons, I encourage everyone in this body to support this 
rule and the underlying bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of 
H.R. 2824, the Increasing Opportunity Through Evidence-Based Home 
Visiting Act; and H.R. 2792, the Control Unlawful Fugitive Felons Act 
of 2017.
  The first measure, H.R. 2824, reauthorizes the Maternal, Infant, and 
Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, or MIECHV, and provides pregnant 
women and families access to resources to improve maternal and child 
health and promotes child development.
  I am glad to see this bill getting the attention that I think we all 
agree it deserves, considering the important role the program plays in 
all of our communities. However, my concern is that, once again, we are 
witnessing my Republican friends take a policy that should garner 
broad, bipartisan support and instead scuttle the effort by playing 
politics.
  H.R. 2824's State matching provision is a threat to the core 
existence of this program. Because of this change from the past 
authorization, I fear that many States will lose Federal funding and 
will be forced to cut off home visiting services altogether.
  Where do you propose poorer States with lower investments in home 
visiting get the money to meet the matching requirements?
  Then, Mr. Speaker, what about Tribal programs? They are especially 
vulnerable to the devastation that will be wrought by making them come 
up with a 30 percent match. Native American communities struggle 
enough, as it is, without having to put up with these absurd 
requirements.
  I do compliment Mrs. Noem for fighting along with our colleague on 
the Rules Committee, Tom Cole, for a 5-year hiatus before they would 
have to make the match. But as one who represents two Tribes, the 
Seminoles and the Miccosukees, I don't even think, after 5 years, their 
vulnerability to devastation is going to be avoided.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask: Why are my Republican colleagues again choosing 
to abandon bipartisanship in favor of partisan politics?
  Our goals should be to reauthorize the vital program, not change 
long-established and successful policies that will hurt the most 
vulnerable in our country.
  This program, as traditionally reauthorized, puts families first in 
order to strengthen communities and improve outcomes for kids and their 
families. Without the MIECHV Program, at-risk families will suffer.
  I strongly support moving quickly to reauthorize this program before 
it expires on September 30, 2017. But adding a provision that will make 
it impossible for many States to fully participate in this program is 
not only not the way forward, it is downright dangerous.
  The second measure is H.R. 2792. It is a sidecar bill, as its only 
purpose in being considered is to offset the cost of the MIECHV 
Program.
  H.R. 2792 would reinstate an old, failed policy that had damaging 
effects for many seniors and people with disabilities by taking away 
Supplemental Security Income benefits from every individual who has an 
outstanding felony warrant, regardless of the seriousness of the 
alleged violation, the age of

[[Page 14974]]

the warrant, or the condition of the recipient.
  Mr. Speaker, over 110 national, State, and local organizations have 
warned that H.R. 2792 is a cruel bill that could have catastrophic 
consequences for some of our most vulnerable citizens.
  Everyone can agree that dangerous criminals should not receive public 
benefits while fleeing justice. In fact, the Social Security 
Administration already provides regular notification to law enforcement 
of any beneficiary who has an outstanding warrant. This bill, on the 
other hand, despite its title, would harm seniors and people with 
severe disabilities, not felons.
  Mr. Speaker, a larger issue at hand is not simply the dangerous 
policy changes in the first bill, nor the failed unnecessary policy 
found in the second, but rather the partisan manner in which these 
bills are being considered, especially in the face of the laundry list 
of items that this body needs to urgently address in a bipartisan 
manner.
  We do not have the luxury of time to debate the majority's attempts 
to legislate failed and dangerous policies that will threaten families.
  We should be acting in the most exigent fashion to address issues 
such as ascertaining the full scope of Hurricane Maria's devastation on 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and what we need to do to make 
our brothers and sisters in those areas whole again.
  We should not be spending our time taking a partisan approach to a 
program that provides pregnant women and families access to resources 
to improve maternal and child health. Rather, we should be working 
across the aisle to address the real pressing issues facing our 
country.

                              {time}  1245

  Congress should be addressing the plight of the millions of American 
citizens living in total devastation in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands.
  Five days after Hurricane Maria decimated what Hurricane Irma had 
spared, 15,000 people remain in government shelters, thousands of homes 
are destroyed, roads are blocked, bridges buckled, and a dam in Puerto 
Rico is on the edge of collapse, threatening the lives of nearly 70,000 
people with flash flooding. Two hospitals in the Virgin Islands have 
been destroyed, and lest I not mention that we have not dealt 
adequately with what is required in Texas and in southwest Louisiana 
and in Florida.
  Today, in my office, numerous representatives of government officials 
and organizations came to present issues concerning ongoing matters 
having to do with their concerns in our area. The Speaker of the House 
and the chairman of appropriations were with several of us in the 
Florida delegation last week to review and view the damage that has 
occurred in the Keys. And here we are, rather than dealing with a 
humanitarian crisis as towns are left without fresh water, power, and 
fuel, we are dealing with a dangerous bill that will address vulnerable 
people in a negative way.
  Officials reported that 1,360 of Puerto Rico's 1,600 telephone cell 
towers are down. The same holds in the Virgin Islands. With 85 percent 
of aboveground and underground phone and internet cables knocked out--
the same in the Virgin Islands--officials still had not had 
communication with 9 of the 78 municipalities. It has been difficult or 
nearly impossible for individuals to reach or connect with their loved 
ones.
  Let me make something very clear that many Members of the House do 
not understand. Everybody cries that FEMA should do all of the things 
that we would want it to do as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
but FEMA today is dealing with 30 disasters in this country.
  I sat here a moment ago and heard our colleague from Montana describe 
over a million acres of fire ongoing there. In southern California, 
there is an extraordinary fire that is taking place in that particular 
area.
  This devastation, these disasters as in Puerto Rico, the Virgin 
Islands, and elsewhere are only cracks of the service of the long to-do 
list that Congress is confronted with. The list is long and time is 
short.
  In addition to the MIECHV program, which the majority has decided to 
undermine here today, at the end of the week, the Children's Health and 
Insurance Program--CHIP, the Children's Health and Insurance Program--
Medicare provisions, and the Community Health Centers Fund all expire 
without any discussion at all in this House. We are leaving not only 
our constituents, young and old, and the American people in a quandary 
about their health insurance or treatment facilities, but adding 
unnecessary anxiety to their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the snowball is only going to grow 
with the end of the calendar year looming right around the corner.
  Let me just remind my colleagues in the majority what needs to be 
addressed by December 8: reauthorizing the National Flood Insurance 
Program--I don't know what that was yesterday that they were trying to 
do with the FAA authorization--an absolute necessity in the wake of 
these devastating storms; keeping the government open and EPA pesticide 
registration fees. And by the end of the year, we must also act to 
reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, which we 
now know plays a critical role in the fundamental aspects of our 
democracy.
  The Affordable Care Act's annual fee on health insurance providers 
needs to be addressed, important for the health of the marketplace, and 
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund financing rate.
  Now, Democrats stand ready to work in a bipartisan fashion to address 
each and every one of the matters that I just talked about, and all of 
them must pass pieces of legislation. What we are witnessing today is a 
clear indication that my Republican friends do not share the same 
spirit, but would rather play politics.
  Let me just add one little bit about that. In the other body, the 
United States Senate, we saw an example of partisan politics play out 
to its extreme, and it is not likely that there is going to be an 
important measure dealing with the healthcare of Americans coming from 
the United States Senate back to this body that passed something that 
was an awful bill earlier in the year.
  But what did it do?
  It caused Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray, who were working on 
bipartisan measures, to stop their bipartisan efforts so that we could 
go forward in the Senate on a partisan measure that is going nowhere. 
People sent us here to work together. They did not send us here to be 
partisan in every one of our moves. What we are witnessing here today 
is another example of partisanship.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk again just for a minute about the second 
bill in today's rule, H.R. 2824, the Increasing Opportunity and Success 
for Children and Parents through Evidence-Based Home Visiting Act, that 
does extend funding for the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home 
Visiting Program.
  I just wanted to talk for a minute about some of the results that we 
have seen in these program grants and, at this point, reference my home 
State of Texas to see how they have performed.
  The Nurse-Family Partnership is a community-based home services group 
that supports pregnant women and new mothers in the Dallas-Fort Worth 
area. They have used grants from this program to support women through 
both the promotion of preventive and prenatal services for pregnant 
women, like connecting women to physicians, helping them get 
medications, and through the utilization of risk reduction services 
such as smoking cessation.
  Again, I tell you this to reiterate that these are good programs. 
This is a good program that we are reauthorizing today and it is worthy 
of our attention and support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague will support the 
DelBene amendment, which will eliminate the

[[Page 14975]]

matching funds for Tribes altogether. I mentioned that earlier.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. 
DeGette), my good friend.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
associate myself with his remarks about everything we need to do by the 
end of the fiscal year, which is the end of this week; in particular, 
reauthorization of CHIP that has helped so many millions of kids get 
health insurance and get the care that they need.
  I rise today, though, to talk about the MIECHV bill, which is up 
today, and to express my deep disappointment that my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have chosen to walk away from yet another 
opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis. We could extend this program 
on a bipartisan basis just the way we started it. It is really a 
success story.
  The evidence-based models are proven to deliver results for kids and 
families in every single State. Investments in MIECHV are investments 
in the success of America's children and their futures. Peer-reviewed 
evidence proves that MIECHV leads to improvements in health outcomes 
for mothers and babies, school achievement, parenting practices, and 
overall early childhood development.
  On top of all that, MIECHV is a great return on investment for 
Federal dollars. For example, for every Federal dollar in the Nurse-
Family Partnership, we get $5.70 in return. Sadly, this bill that the 
House is considering today would set MIECHV back. The partisan proposal 
would make it more difficult for MIECHV models in all of our States to 
continue their success stories.
  Under current law, MIECHV only has enough funding to reach 6 percent 
of eligible families. But instead of working together to help the 
program reach more children, this bill curtails the reach. It cuts the 
funding and, as my ranking member said, it imposes a harmful State-
matching requirement that could force some of these home health visit 
programs to shut down altogether.
  It is really a shame that when you are talking about healthy starts 
for kids, we can't work together on both sides of the aisle. I would 
hope we would defeat this legislation and come back and do what we have 
done before on this program, work together to have a robust piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is shameful that President Trump would end the DACA program 
without a single thought to the consequences this decision would have 
on the 800,000 young lives this program protects.
  Do the American people even want DACA to end?
  The answer is clearly no.
  According to a Politico/Morning Consult poll: ``Support for allowing 
these immigrants to remain in the United States spans across party 
lines: 84 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Independents, and 69 
percent of Republicans think they should stay.''
  Congress must act to protect our DREAMers.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, here is our chance to rectify President Trump's 
heartless decision and restore the American people's faith in us. If we 
defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the 
rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral 
legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in 
every way except on paper.
  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 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, through the Chair, I would advise my 
friend from Texas that I have no further speakers and that I am 
prepared to close.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We stand here today with a to-do list a mile long, and we don't have 
much time to cross items off that list. By kicking the can down the 
road on nearly every past piece of legislation, this Republican 
majority has shown itself completely unable to govern. They have 
abdicated their duty to the American people to accomplish even the most 
basic of legislative tasks: passing a budget. Without Democratic help, 
they wouldn't be able to even keep the lights on.
  My sincere hope is that the next time we meet we will take up 
legislation that provides some much-needed relief to our brothers and 
sisters in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, as well as my home State 
of Florida and Texas and southwest Louisiana; and address the other 
disasters that are occurring throughout our country, more specifically 
having to do with wildfires in Montana, in Oregon, and in California; 
and that we will begin the process of addressing every single one of 
the needs of this Nation, particularly its health and its healthcare in 
a bipartisan way.
  My colleagues on this side of the aisle stand ready to do so. I urge 
a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of two important 
pieces of legislation to restore sanity to the administration of the 
Social Security program and to provide critical tools for disadvantaged 
homes in helping families raise their children with the best possible 
practices.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady, Mrs. Noem, and Mr. Smith for the 
work on each of their respective pieces of legislation, and I urge 
Members of this body to support both bills and the rule which will 
provide for their consideration.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 533 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment 
     of status of certain individuals who are long-term United 
     States residents and who entered the United States as 
     children and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3440.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the

[[Page 14976]]

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

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rules 
governing this underlying bill, H.R. 2792, introduced by Rep. Kristi 
Noem (R-SD) and Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX).
  I oppose the bill for the following reasons:
  SSI is a needs-based program for people with limited income and 
resources.
  It will terminate essential benefits of poor people.
  It will deprive poor people of due process.
  It will increase mass incarceration.
  My amendment would have remedied these criminal justice defects in 
H.R. 2792, which struck the arrest warrant language because (1) it 
recklessly targets vulnerable and innocent individuals; (2) this bill 
deprives citizens of due process, particularly where many poor 
individuals are completely unaware of any pending warrant, and (4) 
there have been cases in which warrants were either decades old or, in 
many instances, it was a matter of a mistaken identity.
  The underlying bill amends the Social Security Act (SSA) to make 
certain revisions that limit payment of benefits to fugitive felons 
under titles II, VIII, and XVI of the (SSA), by prohibiting 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments to individuals with an 
outstanding felony warrant or parole or probation violation.
  Almost none of the individuals who would be affected by this 
provision are actual fugitives from justice and most of the warrants in 
question are many years old and involve minor infractions,'' the 
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities said in a letter to Senators 
who tried to implement this policy.
  This bill is merely a continuation of President Trump's $1.7 trillion 
budget cuts of programs designed to help the millions of poor and low-
income families that need these programs for survival.
  Plainly stated, this bill will terminate SSI benefits of very low-
income seniors and people with disabilities, because SSI is granted 
based on financial need.
  In creating this bill, the sponsors essentially agree that it is best 
to incarcerate economically vulnerable people in order to fund the 
Maternal Infant Early Childhood Home Visiting program (MIECHV).
  As the Center for Law and Social Policy, a nonprofit group focused on 
low-income Americans, previously reported of the Trump's budget scheme, 
this bill would likewise, create an overall assault on a wide range of 
ordinary Americans for the purpose of providing tax cuts to the 
wealthiest.
  My Democratic colleagues on Ways and Means offered amendments to 
fully pay for a 5-year reauthorization of the MIECHV program and 
doubling the funding by closing a tax loophole called the ``stretch 
IRA''. Republicans however, would not let my colleagues vote on those 
amendments.
  My amendment and those of my colleagues would have made this bad bill 
a lot more palatable.
  Instead, the Republicans have chosen, once again, to lock people up, 
and do so in a manner that deprives poor people of their sole source of 
income, while purporting to safeguard against fugitive felons that are 
recipients of these SSI benefits.
  This bill is unnecessary because under current law, SSI and Social 
Security payments are already prohibited to people fleeing prosecution 
or confinement.
  Most alarming, this bill will terminate these benefits without any 
judicial determination of guilt, and thus, usurping recipients' rights 
to due process.
  The presumption of ``innocent until proven guilty'' is the 
constitutional principle at the bedrock of our criminal justice system. 
This principle guarantees that the government cannot deprive citizens 
of their rights without due process of the law.
  The bill maintains that payments could be immediately restored once 
the individual resolves any outstanding issues, a potentially lengthy 
and time-consuming process.
  Ask the thousands of individuals swept under this broad policy if 
that is true. SSA already tried to implement this very ill-advised 
policy and it resulted in thousands of court challenges in 2009 forcing 
the agency to repay billions of dollars it had withheld from people 
deemed fugitives.
  For example, Miami resident Joseph Sutrynowics' Social Security 
Disability Insurance benefits were halted in 2008 because of a bad 
check he'd written to cover groceries in Texas more than a decade 
earlier.
  Under this policy, SSA agreed to repay $700 million in benefits that 
were withheld from 80,000 people whose benefits have been suspended or 
denied since January 1, 2007 in the Martinez v. Astrue case. SSA could 
also, reportedly, repay close to $1 billion in benefits to 140,000 
individuals in the Clark v. Astrue case.
  We have already tried this before and failed miserably. Let us not 
waste tax payers' money in litigation, while causing poor folks to go 
hungry. As the old adage says: ``don't continue to do the same thing 
and expect a different result, that's insanity''.
  Past experiences proved that this policy was detrimental then, and it 
is so now. It will further exacerbate the epic tragedy of mass 
incarceration, and the attendant costs incurred by taxpayers, 
particularly in the well-documented higher cost of incarcerating the 
elderly and those in poor health.
  Even conservative coalitions like Freedom Works, American 
Conservative Union Foundation, Generation Opportunity, and Taxpayers 
Protection Alliance agreed that mass incarceration is extremely costly 
to taxpayers.
  In addition to tax dollars in litigation fees, incarceration cost 
taxpayers $407.58 per person per day and $148,767 per person per year.
  Criminalizing poor individuals, depriving them of their social 
security income benefits, and increasing the incarceration rate in this 
fashion will not solve the fugitive problem this bill purports it will 
do.
  In fact, this bill will expand existing problems of mass 
incarceration by increasing the likelihood for recidivism. Statistics 
show that incarceration does not serve as deterrence, nor does it keep 
our communities safe.
  For the reasons stated above, I oppose this Rule and the underlying 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

[[Page 14977]]



                          ____________________