[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19448-19457]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 477, SMALL BUSINESS MERGERS, 
    ACQUISITIONS, SALES, AND BROKERAGE SIMPLIFICATION ACT OF 2017; 
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3971, COMMUNITY INSTITUTION 
 MORTGAGE RELIEF ACT OF 2017; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. 
         RES. 123, FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 647 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 647

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 477) to 
     amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to exempt from 
     registration brokers performing services in connection with 
     the transfer of ownership of smaller privately held 
     companies. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-43 shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the 
     further amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
     by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the 
     time specified in the report equally divided and controlled 
     by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
     a demand for a division of the question; and (3) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3971) to amend 
     the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement 
     Procedures Act of 1974 to modify the requirements for 
     community financial institutions with respect to certain 
     rules relating to mortgage loans, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 115-44 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the 
     further amendment printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
     by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the 
     time specified in the report equally divided and controlled 
     by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
     a demand for a division of the question; and (3) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 123) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2018, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The 
     joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution and on any 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 Appropriations; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.

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

[[Page 19449]]




                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on House 
Resolution 647.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I hope you were listening as the Reading 
Clerk was going through this rule, because there was a lot of meat in 
this rule today.
  Ordinarily, and, in fact, historically, we will do a bill and we will 
do a rule; we will do a rule and we will do a bill. This rule today 
makes three bills in order, three important bills in order.
  I am proud to be able to carry this rule today. I hope my colleagues 
will see the merits of it as I do.
  The rule provides a structured rule for the debate of two bills out 
of the Financial Services Committee. One is H.R. 477, Mr. Speaker, the 
Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage 
Simplification Act of 2017. The second is H.R. 3971, the Community 
Institution Mortgage Relief Act. The rule also provides for 
consideration of a continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 123, which provides 
appropriations through December 22, as final year decisionmaking and 
negotiating goes on. It also allows the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services, CMS, to reallocate existing funds for the CHIP program 
through December 31, 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start off talking about the Financial Services 
bills. We will have some members from the Financial Services Committee 
come down. They can talk about it in details that I cannot.
  It was a fascinating hearing that we had in the Rules Committee last 
night, Mr. Speaker. We had the chairman, Mr. Hensarling from Texas, and 
we had the ranking member, Ms. Waters. It was a conversation about how 
we protect people, how do we serve people better.
  Now, the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act, Mr. Speaker, is 
the result of small community banks and local credit unions saying: We 
are having a tough time providing mortgages to our members because the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has created rules designed to 
protect consumers that are protecting them right out of access to a 
mortgage at all.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a legitimate disagreement that we have here from 
time to time about how to protect people best, about how to love people 
best, but it is the right kind of conversation to be having. If we pass 
this rule today, we will be able to get into debate on that underlying 
bill.
  The debate will not be about should we protect people, because we all 
agree that we should.

                              {time}  1245

  The debate will be about how should we protect those people, an issue 
on which legitimate, well-intentioned, thoughtful men and women can 
disagree. I look forward to this body working its will.
  The second bill, Mr. Speaker, from the Financial Services Committee, 
H.R. 477, was introduced by a classmate of mine in that big class of 
2011, Mr. Huizenga from Michigan. He has worked this bill through the 
process one step at a time, trying to build consensus so that, Mr. 
Speaker, as we were in the Rules Committee last night, the conversation 
between the chairman and the ranking member was: Hey, if we can make 
one more amendment in order, one more amendment that Mr. Huizenga and 
Mr. Sherman had worked out together, if we can make one more round of 
changes, we believe we can get this through on a big bipartisan 
majority coming out of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, we don't celebrate those things, we don't talk about 
those things. The newspaper will be filled with discord coming out of 
this city tomorrow morning, but I can tell you that it gives me great 
pride to come on behalf of the Rules Committee today bringing forward 
these bills, not that are going to change the world overnight, but are 
going to make a big difference for real people facing real challenges 
across this country.
  It turns out, Mr. Speaker, my experience is if we do a little bit 
together every day, a little bit today, a little bit tomorrow, a little 
bit the next day, we wake up a year from now finding out we have done a 
whole lot together on behalf of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, finally, the continuing resolution. I am not a fan of 
continuing resolutions, I just want to tell you. I got to talk to you 
about my enthusiastic, optimistic part of this rule earlier. I am going 
to lay some tough love on you now, Mr. Speaker. We are not supposed to 
be in the continuing resolution business. You know with your 
leadership, the leadership of the gentlewoman from New York, the 
leadership of the two gentlemen from Michigan here on the floor, this 
House passed on time, ahead of schedule, the funding bills to fund the 
priorities of the American people for fiscal year 2018.
  Folks said we couldn't get it done, folks said we couldn't do it all. 
We did, and we did. We sent that to the Senate, Mr. Speaker, before the 
end of the fiscal year, which was back on September 30. The Senate 
hasn't been able to take it up yet, Mr. Speaker. The Senate hasn't been 
able to debate it yet, Mr. Speaker.
  I don't know if the Senate is going to get it done in the next 2 
weeks, but there are folks in this institution, Mr. Speaker, who say: 
You know what? We couldn't get it done in the Senate over these last 2 
months, so let's just go ahead and pass a continuing resolution for all 
of fiscal year 2018.
  A continuing resolution, for folks who don't follow the 
appropriations process, means, hey, if it worked well last year, let's 
just do the same thing next year. Mr. Speaker, that is awful public 
policy.
  We came together debating almost 500 amendments. Having moved every 
single appropriations bill through the Appropriations Committee, we 
came together not just in a bipartisan way in the committee, we came 
together here on the House floor, debated these issues, grappled with 
these issues, and produced a work product with which the American 
people can take great pride.
  I don't want to give up on that work product, Mr. Speaker. I don't 
want to settle for the way things have been. I believe that we can do 
better.
  By passing a 2-week continuing resolution today, we ensure that all 
the features of government continue to operate as the American people 
expect them to, and we provide another window for the Senate to come 
together and pass those appropriations bills as we have done here in 
the House.
  I am optimistic about that coming to fruition, Mr. Speaker. I believe 
that we can get that done together.
  Mr. Speaker, we can take up these bipartisan efforts from the 
Financial Services Committee, we can take up this important effort to 
continue the funding of the government if we pass this rule today.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great fondness for Mr. Woodall. I think he is one 
of the best, most pleasant persons on the Rules Committee, and it 
grieves me that I have to, right off the bat here, take issue with him, 
but I have to take issue with the claim that Republicans completed 
their appropriation work on time.
  I have got a timetable of the budget process that came from the 
website of the Budget Committee majority, on which my colleague, Mr. 
Woodall, serves. Let's review the most important deadlines.
  First, the President must submit his budget to Congress by the first 
Monday in February. The truth: this year, the administration released 
what they called a skinny budget on March 16 and didn't release the 
full budget until May 23. From our reckoning, that is 4 months late.
  Second, the Congress must complete action on the budget by April 15. 
The truth: this year, Republicans weren't

[[Page 19450]]

able to get the fiscal year 2018 budget through Congress until October 
26, over 6 months late and nearly a month into the new fiscal year.
  Now, here is another deadline, again available on the Republican 
Budget Committee's website. The Appropriations Committee is supposed to 
complete their work by June 10. The truth: this year, they didn't 
report out any appropriations bills until after that deadline had 
passed.
  Another deadline: the House is supposed to complete action on annual 
appropriations bills by June 30. The truth: not only did the Republican 
majority fail to meet that deadline, they weren't able to pass any of 
them separately at all. Instead, they lumped four bills together and 
passed them on July 27 and then passed an Omnibus with all 12 bills 
together on September 14, leaving 2 weeks only for the House and Senate 
to work out their differences, but the law said that they should have 3 
months to do it.
  I wouldn't bring this up except I know Mr. Woodall believes, with all 
his heart, that what he is saying is right, because we have heard it 
before.
  That leads me to the final deadline that they missed. Fiscal year 
2018 began October 1, but here we are more than two months later on 
December 7. The Republican majority has still failed to fund the 
government, because they have been too busy working to kill the 
Affordable Care Act and to give big tax breaks to corporations and 
billionaires.
  On time, Mr. Speaker? Any school child could tell you that you don't 
get credit for an assignment that is 2 months late.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the timetable of the budget 
process from the website of the House Budget Committee majority.

                    Time Table of the Budget Process

       Title III of the Congressional Budget Act establishes a 
     specific timetable for the congressional budget process.
       On or Before, Action to be completed:
       First Monday in February, President submits his budget; 
     February 15, Congressional Budget Office submits report to 
     Budget Committees; Not later than 6 weeks after the President 
     submits the budget, Committees submit views and estimates to 
     Budget Committees. (Frequently, the House Budget Committee 
     sets own date based on Legislative Calendar); April 1, Senate 
     Budget Committee reports concurrent resolution on the budget; 
     April 15, Congress completes action on the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget. (This is not signed by the 
     President)*; May 15, Annual appropriation bills may be 
     considered in House; June 10, House Appropriations Committee 
     reports last annual appropriation bill; June 15, Congress 
     completes action on reconciliation legislation. (If required 
     by the budget resolution); June 30, House completes action on 
     annual appropriation bills; October 1, Fiscal year begins.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the majority has put before us today a 2-
week continuing resolution to fund the government through December 22.
  I have heard some in the majority question why anyone would take 
issue with this approach, but, Mr. Speaker, the question that should be 
asked is this one: What is the majority actually willing to get done 
over the next 2 weeks? Because it has now been more than 2 months since 
some vital national priorities have lapsed under their leadership.
  The Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides healthcare to 
more than 9 million children across this Nation, expired on September 
30. So did the community health centers, which serve more than 25 
million people. Now, this expiration has put 2,800 centers in danger of 
closure and 9 million people at risk for losing their access to their 
healthcare.
  The Perkins Loan Program, which many low-income students rely on for 
their education, was allowed to expire by the majority with no 
reauthorization in sight, despite broad bipartisan support for a bill 
to do just that. Unfortunately, the majority has been unwilling even to 
bring it up for a vote.
  Are they now ready to take meaningful action to protect our children, 
our students, our public health, and our Nation?
  Democrats haven't just been fighting to reauthorize programs that 
expired 2 months ago, we are also trying to address the priorities that 
we know our Nation will face in the weeks ahead. That includes passing 
hurricane relief funding to help the families that are still recovering 
from this horrendous hurricane season; and as all of us are fearful of 
and sad about, California is burning once again; reauthorizing section 
702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which we depend on, 
which is due to expire at the end of this month. The FISA court helps 
to keep our country safe.
  Mr. Speaker, if past is prologue, this majority will be missing in 
action 2 weeks from now, just as they have been for months.
  Just consider, for a moment, how they have squandered this year, 
wasting months on fruitless attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act 
until persuaded by their constituents that they did not want that done. 
It remains the law of the land today after the public overwhelmingly 
demanded the majority stop that crusade.
  Now they are trying to pass a tax cut for the wealthy that, if 
enacted, would represent one of the largest transfers of wealth from 
working families to the wealthy that our Nation has ever seen.
  I want everybody to please pay attention to this, because it is proof 
positive of what is happening with this majority. According to the 
Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office, under 
the majority's plan, those making $40,000 to $50,000 would pay an 
additional $5.3 billion in taxes combined over the next decade. Now, 
remember, they are going to pay more into the number of $5.3 billion.
  At the same time--attention, America--those earning $1 million or 
more would see a $5.8 billion cut. Have you ever seen anything as cut 
and dry? They absolutely want to take from the poor to give to the 
rich--Robin Hood in reverse.
  So we are 2 months into the fiscal year, and the majority has been so 
preoccupied with the special interest agenda, that we haven't passed 
full year appropriations. This has robbed the Federal agencies and our 
economy of the certainty that they need.
  The majority holds the House, the Senate, and the White House and 
still can't get anything done. So when Democrats see a continuing 
resolution for 2 weeks, we don't see a simple extension of the status 
quo; we see it for what it really is: kicking the can down the road in 
order to pursue reckless partisan politics, and it comes without any 
plan to tackle the major issues that face our Nation today.
  Let me remind my colleagues how important it has been for both 
parties to work together, because in this process, both the CR and the 
tax bill, there are no Democrat fingerprints on any of it. For a lot of 
this stuff, there has even been no committee action.
  Democrats have helped the majority pass every major funding bill 
since they assumed control in 2011. That is the result of 
bipartisanship.
  This time, the majority decided not to compromise with us to reach a 
deal. Let's see if they can cobble together the votes to get this 
proposal over the finish line.
  Even if it passes, we will be back here later this month to consider 
another short-term continuing resolution, and we still have no idea 
whether this bill, the one we are working on today, could even pass the 
Senate.
  This is no way to run the United States of America. The lives of our 
countrymen are hanging in the balance.
  All we do under this majority is to lurch from one self-inflicted 
crisis to the next. Our constituents deserve much better than this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with a lot of what my friend from New 
York had to say when it comes to the facts. I do disagree with the 
conclusions that are reached there, Mr. Speaker.
  We do need to do a better job of working together. Now, sometimes 
that means Republicans and Democrats, sometimes that means the House 
and the Senate, sometimes that means the White House and the Congress. 
We need to hold each other accountable, but we also need to give each 
other credit for our successes.

[[Page 19451]]

  The gentlewoman talked about important issues relating to education 
and improving workforce. We passed together in this institution a 
continuation of career and technical education funding. We reauthorized 
that program together, led by G.T. Thompson on my side of the aisle, by 
Mr. Krishnamoorthi on your side of the aisle, by Chairwoman Foxx on our 
side of the aisle, by Ranking Member Scott on your side of the aisle. 
We grappled with that issue together. We did it together, because it 
was the right thing for the American people, and now it sits in the 
United States Senate without action.

                              {time}  1300

  We came together, and we funded the government. We grappled, line by 
line, section by section, we did it together, and now it sits in the 
United States Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, what needs to be said, one can describe it as Republican 
incompetence. One can describe it as Democrat intransigence. But we, as 
a House, have come together and gotten our work done. The Senate 
cannot, and why the Senate cannot is because it requires 60 votes to 
get something done over there under Senate rules. In order to have 60 
votes, you have to have Democrat votes.
  If the Senate changed its rules tomorrow and made it just a 
Republican majority institution, they could move all of these bills 
without delay. Far from being a reflection of incompetence, it is a 
reflection of a commitment to a bipartisan effort on the Senate side.
  We can poke them and poke them and poke them and, just one day, folks 
might get their wish, and we may make that a completely Republican 
streamlined process over there. But be careful what you wish for.
  We don't have to kick each other in the shins all day long, every 
day, over here. We have success after success that we have earned 
together. We should spend more time celebrating those successes, Mr. 
Speaker. Among those successes is the bill I mentioned earlier, offered 
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Huizenga) to talk about the hard work, the effort, and the success that 
he has been able to accomplish in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and classmate from 
Georgia, Mr. Woodall, for the opportunity to be here.
  Mr. Speaker, more and more baby boomers retire every day, and it has 
been estimated that approximately $10 trillion of privately owned, 
small, and family-run businesses will either be closed or, if possible, 
sold to a new generation of entrepreneurs in the coming years.
  Mergers and acquisitions--or M&A as it is oftentimes referred to--
brokers play a critical role in facilitating the transfer of ownership 
of these smaller, privately held companies. However, today's one-size-
fits-all system of broker-dealer regulation unnecessarily burdens 
business sellers and buyers with the pass-through of heavy regulatory 
compliance costs that do not provide significant incremental benefits 
in privately negotiated M&A transactions.
  Today, Federal securities regulations technically require local 
mergers and acquisitions brokers to be registered and regulated by the 
Securities and Exchange Commission and FINRA, just like Wall Street 
investment bankers. Those bankers are trying to sell or buy publicly 
traded companies. That is right; anyone brokering the sale of a 
hometown small business in your district or in mine, like in Holland, 
Michigan, must be federally registered and regulated as a securities 
broker-dealer, in addition to State law requirements, regardless of the 
size of the business or the sale transaction.
  Federal securities regulation was primarily designed to protect 
passive investors and public securities markets. Privately negotiated 
mergers and acquisitions transactions facilitated by these small 
business brokers are vastly different and do not typically relate to 
the transactions meant to be protected by the SEC and FINRA regulation 
and registration.
  That is why I have continued to introduce bipartisan legislation 
known as the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and Brokerage 
Simplification Act. This bipartisan bill would create a simplified 
system for brokers performing services in connection with the transfer 
of ownership of smaller, privately held companies.
  I would like to thank Representatives Sherman and Maloney, along with 
the work of Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters for what they 
have done. And as my friend from Georgia had pointed out, not every day 
do we have to just keep kicking each other in the shins. We actually 
can work together, and this is an example of doing that.
  So the impact of this legislation would significantly reduce 
transaction costs, promote competition among these small business 
brokers, and facilitate private businesses and acquisitions of these 
small businesses.
  This initiative promotes economic growth and development through 
these sales, and there is really substantial relief of regulatory 
burdens on small business professionals who serve these smaller 
business owners.
  Business brokerage services are critically important to entrepreneurs 
who start, build, and eventually want to sell their private companies. 
Similarly, these services help new entrepreneurs acquire these 
businesses, while helping existing companies grow, thus preserving and 
creating jobs in the communities that we all serve.
  We have worked very closely with our colleagues across the aisle, and 
this has been a multi--not just multiyear--a multi-Congress effort over 
the last few different Congresses, and I am just pleased today that we 
can show the American people positive, effective, bipartisan work that 
is coming together.
  It is legislation like H.R. 477 that demonstrates, frankly, that 
Congress can act in a bipartisan manner to positively impact the lives 
of Americans, and I urge swift consideration and passage of this 
important bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentlewoman, the 
ranking member, for yielding, and I thank Mr. Woodall for his comments. 
He and I have worked together on issues in the past. We worked together 
to try to protect our solar manufacturers in this country, so there are 
areas of agreement that we come to.
  I think we also agree, I now hear, on this question of continuing 
resolutions. We both don't like them. And I think we do have to keep in 
mind that, today, we are 48 hours from the government closing, so I 
won't address any other subject than that question and the process that 
has led us to this moment where we are looking at another continuing 
resolution for 2 weeks.
  I won't address the Small Business Mergers, Acquisitions, Sales, and 
Brokerage Simplification Act. While it may be an important piece of 
legislation, it is difficult to forget what has brought us to this 
moment where we are 48 hours from the government shutting down.
  What is interesting to me about it is, it is true that the 
Republicans hold the majority in this House and set the agenda here; 
hold the majority in the Senate, set the agenda there. You have your 
Republican President, the leader of your party, your leader, who sets 
the agenda from the White House.
  You have had the entire year to get a package of spending bills to 
the floor and through to the President. And here we are, 2 days away 
from a shutdown, because 2\1/2\ months ago, after nearly a year, the 
process came to a halt, and this body had to approve a 2\1/2\ month 
extension because we couldn't get the work done.
  Now, instead of, over the last 2\1/2\ months, coming up with a full 
plan to fund the government and provide the certainty and security that 
the American people and our economy depend upon, after 2\1/2\ months, 
the best we can do is promise the people of the country and our economy 
14 more days.
  I mean, why are we here?
  In the last 2\1/2\ months, have we seen any action? No, not on 
disaster relief

[[Page 19452]]

for those places that are struggling through the worst moments that 
they have experienced; not to make sure that we have healthcare, health 
insurance, which was a bipartisan program, the Children's Health 
Insurance Program. Anything? No.
  So that DREAMers aren't deported? People who only know this country?
  And think about this: since the President, himself--and this is an 
area where we have some agreement--declared that we have a national 
emergency, our people, our children, are dying due to this opioid 
crisis, and where is the solution there?
  Where is the debate there?
  Where is the effort on the floor of this House to deal with these 
big, pressing problems that our country faces?
  We have had the last 2\1/2\ months; we could have done it during that 
period.
  But what has been the focus? A singular obsession around a piece of 
legislation that is purported to be tax reform, but at close 
examination by just about any significant economist, Democrats, 
Republicans, and Independents is the greatest, most significant, 
massive shift of hard-earned wealth from working Americans to people 
who make more than $900,000 a year.
  The notion that, with all the difficulty we are facing in this 
country, with all the struggles we are having, with disasters that are 
yet to be corrected, with an opioid crisis that is yet to be attacked, 
with DREAMers who have uncertainty, with children with no certainty of 
healthcare, the most significant priority is not funding the 
government, but ensuring that people who make more than those suffering 
people, who make more than $900,000 a year, get more?
  That is not a reflection of the priorities of the American people; 
and that is why it is so difficult for us, who are ready, honestly--
honestly ready to work hand in glove, knowing we are not going to win 
every fight, but give us a chance to sit at the table and have a 
conversation about where we might find some common ground.
  And we do from time to time. It is not impossible. Even with my 
friends in this Chamber right now, we have found ways to work together. 
But we cannot do it, we cannot do it unless there is a commitment to do 
the work of the American people, and we have not seen that.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would be interested sometime, Mr. Speaker, having a team building 
expert take a look at some of our proceedings here on the House floor 
and see if they think that the conversations that happen here bring us 
closer to working together on serious solutions, or push us further 
away.
  I agree with my friend from Michigan; we need to get about the 
business of the American people. The business of the American people is 
not figuring out who to blame, it is figuring out how to fix things. 
And to continue to perpetuate the inaccurate message that we don't 
collaborate on those issues is to do our bosses, the American people, a 
terrible disservice.
  On bill after bill to combat the opioid epidemic, we have come 
together in this institution. We have passed these bills in a 
collaborative way and sent them to the United States Senate. Bill after 
bill on human trafficking, we have come together in this institution. 
We have passed these bills. We have sent those bills to the United 
States Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, we are talking about funding the American Government. I 
have been in this Congress since 2011. I got to vote, for the very 
first time, on funding the Centers for Disease Control, which sits 
right in my back yard in the great State of Georgia.
  I got to vote, for the very first time, on funding the National 
Institutes of Health, which do such amazing research, both for our 
seniors and for our children. The kind of talent that we have there, 
Mr. Speaker, boggles the mind. We came together, and we funded those 
institutions in the annual appropriations bill for the first time ever.
  Now, we can spend our time together talking about who hates children 
and who hates old people, and why it is everybody is an untalented 
buffoon; or we can recognize that, on issue after issue, we come 
together and get about the business that our bosses sent us to get 
about.
  I don't think any of us are going to be rewarded by figuring out who 
to blame. I think we are going to be rewarded by getting it fixed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Tenney), who has worked, through the Financial Services Committee, 
again, in a bipartisan way, to deal with local community financial 
institutions and local home buyers who are getting shut out of the 
process by an overly burdensome Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia, Mr. Woodall, 
for yielding and for his great comments about bipartisanship.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last 10 years, the community financial 
institution industry has undergone a dramatic transformation. Since 
2006, more than 1,500 banks have failed, have been acquired, or have 
merged due to economic factors and the overwhelmingly expensive 
regulation brought forth by the passage of Dodd-Frank.
  During that same period, there has been a drought in de novo banks. 
In fact, only five new bank charters and 16 new credit unions have 
chartered since that time.
  Today, for the first time in 125 years, there are fewer than 6,000 
banks and roughly 6,000 credit unions serving all consumers in the 
United States. This is proof that community financial institutions need 
smart, commonsense, regulatory relief so they can properly serve local 
communities by assisting them with small business startups and consumer 
credit, particularly in a region like mine in upstate New York.
  It is important that we pass this rule today to consider my bill, 
H.R. 3971, the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act.

                              {time}  1315

  This bipartisan measure would offer real relief for institutions that 
are barely surviving in an excessive regulatory environment.
  I thank my colleague, Mr. Sherman, for assisting us in a bipartisan 
way to bring this bill forward and to make it even better than we 
originally conceived it.
  H.R. 3971 would exempt small community institutions from mandatory 
escrow requirements and would provide relief from new regulations that 
have nearly doubled the cost of servicing, with direct impact on the 
consumer for the cost of mortgage credit.
  I know that certain institutions wish to continue to provide escrow 
services to their consumers, and under current law and under this 
provision, they are welcome to do that. However, for the smaller 
institutions, like the ones in my district, like GPO Federal Credit 
Union, for example, that rely on relationship banking, customers that 
walk in the door and know who your neighbors are and know who your 
friends are and whose children serve on the same sports teams and go to 
the same schools, this bill will greatly help them and help our 
consumers continue with that relationship.
  By mandating that all institutions follow escrow requirements, it 
raises the cost of credit for those borrowers who can least afford it, 
and harms our small local institutions who can barely afford to stay 
alive.
  This is a great commonsense bill. It is bipartisan, as every bill I 
have ever proposed in this Chamber has been since my first year as a 
freshman, and I will continue to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this bill. I again thank my colleague from Georgia for his 
work. I urge everyone to support this commonsense bill that will help 
our small community banks and our credit unions.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me and also for her tremendous leadership on so many 
issues, especially on the Rules Committee.
  As a members of the Appropriations and Budget Committees, I rise in

[[Page 19453]]

strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill, H.J. Res. 123, 
the fiscal year 2017 continuing resolution.
  This bill kicks the can down the road for 2 weeks just so Republicans 
can continue focusing on the greatest tax scam in history.
  As Ranking Member Lowey has said: What do Republicans think that they 
can accomplish in the next 2 weeks that they haven't accomplished in 
the last 2 months?
  Well, I say: Except, of course, trying to give tax breaks to their 
wealthy donors, millionaires, billionaires, and corporations, and 
raising taxes on middle-income and low-income families. That is what 
this is about.
  This reckless, short-term resolution ignores many of our critical 
year-end priorities, like passing a clean Dream Act, a temporary 
protective status provision we need in the CR; raising budgetary caps; 
and emergency disaster funding for hurricanes and wildfires, children's 
health insurance programs, and community health centers. I could go on 
and on. That is what we should be debating and what should be in this 
resolution. Now is not the time for Congress to be asleep at the wheel. 
We need action, Mr. Speaker, and we need it now.
  Despite the fact that Republicans control the House, the Senate, and 
the White House, once again, they refuse to do their job. It is so 
wrong to string people and communities out not knowing whether their 
government will function or stay open.
  How irresponsible can you get?
  We need to fully fund the government. Across the country, millions of 
people are living on the edge. Forty million Americans are living in 
poverty. Millions more are struggling to put food on the table and keep 
a roof over their head.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Russell). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. We are passing a short-
term funding bill that underfunds education and workforce training at a 
time that Americans need it the most.
  Instead, once again, what are they doing?
  They are taking time to give tax cuts to corporations to send jobs 
overseas.
  The American people expect us to create jobs, to strengthen our 
economy, to provide a basic standard of living for all. With sequester 
cuts looming, it is past time that we focus on our spending here at 
home and stop these increases to a bloated military budget, which 
really does nothing for our national security.
  Instead of bringing our Nation to the brink of self-inflicted crisis, 
Republicans should work with us to meet the needs of our Nation and a 
strong national security, which requires resisting these cuts to our 
State Department and to our foreign assistance. Unfortunately, this 2-
week continuing resolution does just the opposite.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and 
``no'' on the underlying bill, and let's do our job. Let's do what the 
American people expect us to do, and that is to fully fund the 
government and look out for them in terms of not giving tax cuts to 
millionaires and billionaires and raising their taxes, because they 
deserve better from us.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I opened with a discussion about how we all care about 
these American homeowners who are trying to get, oftentimes, into their 
first home, and how it is that we protect them better.
  We disagreed about how to protect them.
  Do you do it through the CFPB and Federal regulation? Or do you do it 
through more local hometown institutions being governed by their 
neighbors?
  We agreed on what the need was, but we disagreed on how to get there.
  What is so frustrating to me--I still feel like a relatively new 
Member of this institution, Mr. Speaker. I guess I am not any longer--
is that we seem to have one standard when we are in the majority and a 
completely different standard when the other guy takes over the 
institution. It seems to me that principles should be principles 
irrespective of who sits in your chair.
  The very first big vote I took when I got here in 2011, Mr. Speaker, 
was to fund the United States Government in February.
  Why?
  Because when Democrats ran every single facet of government--they 
controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, and they controlled 
the White House--they didn't get it done. They couldn't get it done. It 
is hard to do sometimes, Mr. Speaker.
  I will take you back. You weren't in this institution at that time. 
The year is 2010. The first CR that they passed went from October 1 to 
December 3, about the same length of time as the one that we passed.
  They weren't up to anything nefarious when that happened, Mr. 
Speaker, and I resent the implication that we have been during that 
same path. They needed a little extra time and they took it.
  When that CR expired, Mr. Speaker, they then went and passed, lo and 
behold, a 2-week CR--a 2-week CR from December 4 to December 18. They 
needed a little more time. They passed one for 2 more weeks to get 
themselves a little more time.
  That didn't work out, Mr. Speaker. They still weren't able to get it 
done in those 2 weeks, so their next CR, Mr. Speaker, went from 
December 19 to December 21. Three days is what they found to be the 
right number to extend funding of the Federal Government so they could 
continue to get their work done, Mr. Speaker.
  When that 3-day CR didn't work, they then punted altogether; and when 
my freshman class came in in 2011, we took over and we funded the 
government instead.
  Mr. Speaker, we can describe what happened when my friends last 
controlled this institution as an abominable failure, or we can 
describe it as a frustrating failure but something that happens in this 
institution. It happened when my friends ran it. It happens when we run 
it. We need, on behalf of the American people, to get on a better 
track. Let me stipulate that is true.
  But let me ask my friends to stipulate, Mr. Speaker, that for the 
first time in a long time we are on a better track because we came 
together in this institution and we got our work done. The Senate 
hasn't, and I am frustrated by that, but I want to give them a little 
more time.
  For my friend from Michigan who asked the question, ``What difference 
does 2 weeks make,'' I would ask anyone who has that question to Google 
``continuing resolution'' and ``Department of Defense.''
  If you think that continuing to fund the government one day at a time 
with a continuing resolution, or even 12 months of the time during a 
continuing resolution, if you think that is the definition of success, 
Google ``continuing resolution'' and ``Department of Defense.''
  Every single day that we fail to take up in the United States Senate 
the large full-year funding appropriations bill, we do a disservice to 
every single man and woman in uniform.
  If we have a choice here today, Mr. Speaker, between doing that 
disservice to those men and women for 2 weeks or 6 weeks or 8 weeks or 
12 months, I choose to.
  If you wonder what difference it makes, ask any man or woman in 
uniform. There is a reason, Mr. Speaker, as hard as the appropriations 
process is, that you and I took up the defense portion, the Homeland 
Security portion, the national security portion all the way back in the 
summer and passed it out of this House before the end of July, because 
we knew how important it was. We knew how mission critical it was, and 
we wanted to give the Senate the most time we possibly could.
  I am frustrated, too, but let us not describe these failures as 
partisan failures, as an effort by one side or the other to subvert the 
process. These are failures. But 2 weeks, Mr. Speaker, is going to be 
less of a failure for our men

[[Page 19454]]

and women in uniform than would be 3 weeks, 4 weeks, or 12 months.
  I am sorry that we are here, but this is the best circumstance that 
we can create to allow our Senate time to succeed.
  They cannot succeed alone. Republicans cannot succeed there alone. It 
requires a bipartisan majority to succeed. Let us not pretend this is a 
partisan problem. This is an American challenge, and I believe we are 
up for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said they need the Democrats. 
He must be aware that they only need us when the votes come.
  There is not a Democrat fingerprint on that tax bill. We had nothing 
to say about any of it. And while we begged almost on our hands and 
knees to be a part of what they are doing, we are not. It always sounds 
good when we hear it on the floor: Bipartisan. Oh, look, we want to 
work together.
  But then, oftentimes, as you know, Mr. Speaker, bills come to the 
Rules Committee with no committee action whatsoever and no possible 
description to be bipartisan.
  Mr. Speaker, for years we have endured relentless Republican attacks 
on the Affordable Care Act, including just last week in the Senate's 
disastrous tax bill. By repealing the individual mandate, the Senate 
bill has knocked 13 million people from their health insurance.
  I must have asked 20 times when they were doing those 60 times to try 
to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act: Why do you want to take 
healthcare away from people?
  I have never, to this day, gotten an answer as to why it is they so 
despise a healthcare bill that is working and has literally insured 
more Americans than have ever been insured before.
  Then suddenly, just on a whim, one party decides--the one that has 
been fighting to kill it over and over again--that they will come at it 
piecemeal and just try to render it helpless by taking away the ability 
to even say it is time to go sign up again.
  I am sure they thought they would do grievous harm, but it didn't 
work that way, and millions of people came out to sign up again because 
healthcare is one of the most critical needs for any American family.
  To make matters worse, the bill also repeals most of the State and 
local tax deductions, and that is a deduction that helps middle class 
families in my State of New York.
  New York, on average, gives back to the Federal Government of the 
United States $40 billion; money that we send to Washington and get 
nothing back for it, the way we are rewarded for that. I think that 
probably will not be happening anymore since the taxes are going to go 
up so much higher on the people of my State, unless they do away with 
what is absolutely one of the most atrocious things I have ever seen 
them do.
  Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the tax bill was not designed to help 
middle class families put food on their table, but, instead, it gives 
corporation tax cuts to line the pockets of their shareholders.
  I have yet to read or see the Senate tax bill, but I understand there 
are gifts in there for people who own jet planes. I don't represent any 
of those.

                              {time}  1330

  But taking care, again, of the rich, as demonstrated in the figures 
that supported my speech a while ago, that just short of $6 billion, 
that goes from the poor people who make under $40,000 to the rich 
people, the same office, the same amount of money, dollar for dollar, 
and absolutely proves what we are saying.
  But you don't need to hear from it me. Don't take my word for it. 
Republican Congressman Mark Sanford recently said in a moment of great 
candor: ``From a truth-in-advertising standpoint, it would have been a 
lot simpler if we just acknowledged reality on this bill, which is it's 
fundamentally a corporate tax reduction and restructuring bill, 
period.''
  There is no tiny scintilla of reform in this bill. It is simply, as 
he points out, a way to lower the corporate tax and take care of the 
extraordinarily wealthy in this country who don't need it.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish we could provide health for middle class 
families, which is what I believe the President of the United States 
thinks he did. I hear him say all the time that there is nothing in 
there to benefit him--except, probably, the estate tax, which we 
understand would save him about $1 billion.
  So, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment 
that will prohibit any legislation being considered on the floor that 
limits or repeals the State and local tax deduction or repeals the ACA 
individual mandate.
  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, let me take a moment and remind everyone 
watching of the impacts of the majority's last shutdown in 2013. The 
impacts on our economy were significant. We lost $24 billion in just 
those 2 weeks. The impacts on our economy, as I said, were very 
significant:
  Federal loans to small businesses, homeowners, and families were 
brought to a halt.
  Banks and other lenders were unable to access government verification 
services, which delayed private sector lending to small businesses and 
individuals alike.
  Federal permitting was brought to a standstill, which delayed job-
creating projects in the transportation and energy sectors.
  Experts have estimated that all told, this 16-day shutdown cost our 
economy an estimated $24 billion.
  So, during this shutdown, again, vital services were put on hold.
  At the National Institutes of Health, hundreds of patients were 
unable to enroll in possibly lifesaving clinical trials.
  Federal agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the 
Environmental Protection Agency were unable to conduct health and 
safety inspections.
  Federal scientific research was also halted, and we lost a lot of 
scientists in this country because of all that. Five Nobel Prize 
winning scientists who worked for the Federal Government at the time of 
the shutdown, four of the five of them were laid off.
  This is all according to a report issued by the Office of Management 
and Budget.
  The public knows how devastating another shutdown could be. According 
to a poll conducted by Morning Consult and Politico released this week, 
there is bipartisan opposition, with 68 percent of Democrats, 62 
percent of Republicans, and 61 percent of Independents all opposing a 
government shutdown.
  I forgot to mention up there about Social Security checks and things 
for the Veterans Administration. They came to a halt.
  So that is what makes this so frustrating. I agree with Mr. Woodall. 
This is a frustrating part of what we are trying to do here. Every day 
it seems we get up and we face some kind of new disaster.
  We could have crafted a bipartisan bill--we sure could have--that 
would have removed any question of whether a continuing resolution 
would pass the House and Senate.
  We could have reauthorized the Children's Health Insurance Program, 
community health centers, Perkins loans, and more months ago, if only 
the majority were willing to work with Democrats. Instead, 
bipartisanship is all too often becoming a dirty word under the 
majority. I sadly say: It is the American people left to pay the price.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, and the 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank my friend from New York for helping me to bring the rule 
today.

[[Page 19455]]

  Mr. Speaker, I believe in truth in advertising, and of all the things 
that you heard the Reading Clerk read, when he went through word for 
word for word from this rule, you heard not one word about taxes today. 
Why? Because we are not talking about taxes today at all. Because 
nothing that we are doing today has anything to do with taxes at all. 
Because of all the successes that we are down here to partner on today, 
tax is not one of them.
  What is on the list today?
  Well, in the spirit of truth in advertising, Mr. Speaker, shutdowns 
aren't on the list either. In fact, the opposite is true. If we pass 
this rule today, we will fund the government. We will prioritize 
keeping the doors open.
  Mr. Speaker, habits are hard things to break, and we are in two very 
bad habits in this institution. One is failing to see the merit in what 
the other side is offering. We have two Financial Services bills today 
that break that pattern, that see the merit in working together and 
collaborating together, and we bring two bills to the floor that this 
entire institution can be proud of.
  We have another bad habit of ascribing to the other side's motives 
that I believe are not worthy of this institution at all. A government 
shutdown would be one of those things. We are, in good faith, working 
together--Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, Congress and 
White House--to get about the business of the American people, and it 
is hard. But it is worth doing, and it is worth doing right.
  If I have to choose between fast and right, I choose right. We have 
got a chance today, with the passage of this rule, to bring up two 
bills that our colleagues, in bipartisan ways, have worked through on 
the Financial Services Committee that will make a big difference to 
families and businesses across this Nation.
  We have an opportunity today, if we pass this rule, to bring up a 
continuing resolution that guarantees to every single American that the 
doors are open, the lights are on, and we continue and have an 
opportunity for the Senate to move final legislation.
  I want my colleagues to support this rule. I want my colleagues to 
support the underlying bills. But, Mr. Speaker, more than anything, I 
want my colleagues to take pride in the successes that we have achieved 
here today.
  CHIP funding, Children's Health Insurance funding, is at risk, but 
not because we haven't succeeded. We have. All we need is one more 
signature from the Senate.
  CDC funding may be at risk, but not because we haven't succeeded. We 
have. We just need that bill to get across the floor in the Senate.
  Our troops are on the cusp of receiving a well-deserved pay raise. 
Why? Because we came together and we passed it here. We just need it to 
get across the floor of the Senate.
  And there is not one of those items or a dozen more that I could 
list, Mr. Speaker, that will move across the floor of the Senate in 
anything but a bipartisan way.
  Do you want bipartisanship? If you want cooperation, if you want 
success, we have our chance today. Vote ``yes'' on this rule, Mr. 
Speaker. Vote ``yes'' on these underlying bills, and let's get together 
and get the Senate across the finish line as well.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 647 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:

     ``SEC. 4. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ANY TAX BILL THAT RAISES 
                   TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES BY ELIMINATING 
                   OR LIMITING THE STATE AND LOCAL TAX DEDUCTION.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or 
     conference report that repeals or limits the State and Local 
     Tax Deduction (26 U.S.C. Sec.  164).
       (b) Waiver in the House.--It shall not be in order in the 
     House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that 
     waives the application of subsection (a). As disposition of a 
     point of order under this subsection, 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.''

     ``SEC. 5. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ANY TAX BILL THAT REPEALS 
                   THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE UNDER THE PATIENT 
                   PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution, 
     motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or 
     conference report that repeals or limits the individual 
     mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
     (26 U.S.C. Sec.  5000A).
       (b) Waiver in the House.--It shall not be in order in the 
     House of Representatives to consider a rule or order that 
     waives the application of subsection (a). As disposition of a 
     point of order under this subsection, 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 Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . . When 
     the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of 
     the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to 
     ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then 
     controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or 
     yield for the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. WOODALL. 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.

[[Page 19456]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adopting House Resolution 647, if ordered;
  Suspending the rules and adopting H. Res. 259; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 190, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 665]

                               YEAS--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     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

                               NAYS--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     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 (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     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)
     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
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     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--6

     Bridenstine
     Brownley (CA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Kennedy
     Pocan
     Ryan (OH)

                              {time}  1404

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 188, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 666]

                               YEAS--238

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     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

                               NAYS--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera

[[Page 19457]]


     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     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)
     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
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     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--6

     Bridenstine
     Brownley (CA)
     Doggett
     Kennedy
     Pocan
     Scott, David


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1411

  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.

                          ____________________