[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20459-20471]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1370, 
  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BLUE CAMPAIGN AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 
 2017; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4667, FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL 
  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE 
         PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 22, 2017, THROUGH JANUARY 7, 2018

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 670 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 670

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     1370) to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue Department of 
     Homeland Security-wide guidance and develop training programs 
     as part of the Department of Homeland Security Blue Campaign, 
     and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, 
     and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 
     point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House 
     concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting 
     of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-52. The Senate 
     amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on

[[Page 20460]]

     Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening 
     motion.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4667) making 
     further supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2018, for disaster assistance for 
     Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and calendar year 2017 
     wildfires, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution 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. 
     Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply during consideration 
     of the bill. 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 
     Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day of the first session of the 
     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress after December 21, 2017--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day of the second session of 
     the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress before January 8, 2018--
        (a) the Speaker may dispense with organizational and 
     legislative business;
       (b) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved if applicable; and
       (c) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the periods addressed 
     by sections 3 and 4 of this resolution as though under clause 
     8(a) of rule I.
       Sec. 6.  Each day during the periods addressed by sections 
     3 and 4 of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar 
     day for purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution 
     (50 U.S.C. 1546).
       Sec. 7.  Each day during the periods addressed by sections 
     3 and 4 of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative 
     day for purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.

  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 my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, most of what you just heard from the 
Reading Clerk you could have heard during the previous 4 hours of 
testimony that we have been taking in the Rules Committee this morning. 
I understand there was no other game in town going on this morning, so 
if folks were tuning in to C-SPAN, they were treated to my friend from 
Massachusetts, our ranking member from New York, our chairman from 
Texas, and all the gang there on the Rules Committee as we worked 
through this.
  But forbid the thought if someone else had something else on their 
mind this morning, I want to go through just briefly what you heard 
from our Reading Clerk.
  This is a single rule that provides for consideration of two 
measures. The first is the Senate amendment to H.R. 1370. It is 
continuing appropriations to make sure the lights stay on and the 
checks go out the door. It makes in order a motion to concur in the 
Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of this 
continuing resolution.
  To debate that, Mr. Speaker, we provide an hour of debate divided 
between the chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee. I think every Member of this Chamber understands the nature 
of this legislation, but we provided that time nonetheless.
  The second measure is H.R. 4667. It is the disaster aid package.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, this House has been working through, in a 
bipartisan way, funding our neighbors who have been so dramatically 
affected by disasters, whether in the Virgin Islands, in Puerto Rico, 
in Florida, in Texas, or the devastating wildfires in California. This 
has been a national focus, and billions of dollars have already gone 
out the door to meet the initial emergency needs. This is an additional 
appropriations measure.

                              {time}  1230

  It comes under a closed rule, Mr. Speaker, but it does self-execute 
two amendments that had been offered: an amendment by Mrs. Mimi Walters 
and an amendment by Miss Gonzalez-Colon.
  It also provides for an hour of debate, equally divided between the 
chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and it 
provides for a motion to recommit for the minority.
  The rest of what you heard from the Reading Clerk, Mr. Speaker, was 
that typical language that you hear at the end of the year when Members 
are going to be traveling, to allow for the housekeeping that takes 
place here, to allow the House to continue to function as the 
traditional authorities provided in December and January during the 
district work period.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I think we have exhaustively debated 
these issues. I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Let's get on to 
the underlying measures.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are strongly opposed to this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say to my colleagues that this is really a sad 
day, not only for the institution, but for the United States of 
America.
  It is frustrating that we are here today doing a third continuing 
resolution. For those who are watching these proceedings, we should be 
actually passing appropriations bills that fund the government for an 
entire year. We shouldn't be funding the government week to week, month 
to month.
  Yet my Republican friends have ended up doing just that. They can't 
seem to get their act together, notwithstanding they are in control of 
the House of Representatives, they are in control of the United States 
Senate, and they are in control of the White House. They simply cannot 
govern. They are lucky that the American people can't sue them, because 
they would be sued for political malpractice.
  The one thing that they are supposed to do is to keep this government 
running and to keep the lights on, yet we lurch from one crisis to 
another crisis to another crisis to another crisis.
  Today, what they are saying is: Let's kick the can down the road 
until January 19. You know what will happen then?
  Another crisis. Then we will be in the same situation, and we will 
probably kick the can down the road another few weeks.
  That is not the way government is supposed to run. People need 
certainty, and this Congress has delivered anything but certainty. It 
has to stop. It is frustrating.
  A solution, if I can be so bold as to suggest a solution to dealing 
with some of the problems that the Republican leadership is 
confronting, might be a little bipartisanship, might be opening up this 
process a little bit, might be a little bit more deliberation on the 
floor of the House of Representatives.
  There are a couple of ways they can govern. One is, they can govern 
in a way where they respect all points of view, where they actually 
respect the viewpoint of the minority, where they open the process up 
so the minority can, every once in a while, offer some amendments and 
offer some alternatives, where they negotiate on spending bills in good 
faith, where they know they are not going to get everything and the 
minority knows they are not going to get everything, but they

[[Page 20461]]

end up in a compromise that is good enough to get bipartisan support.
  That is the way things used to be done around here. I don't know why 
it is so difficult to get back to those days, but if they want the 
government to run better, that is what they need to do. They have to 
stop this my-way-or-the-highway approach to every single piece of 
legislation that comes before this body.
  My friends have had more closed rules than any other session of 
Congress. This is the most closed session in the history of the 
Congress. That is what this session will go down in history as being: 
the most closed session in the history of Congress.
  They have used martial law, they have used closed rules, they have 
had emergency meetings, all to try to get us to this point where we are 
kicking the can down the road for a couple of weeks. That is it.
  What we should have been doing is working together not only to keep 
the government open, but we ought to have been working together to 
raise the caps.
  Democrats want a strong national defense. We also need an equal 
increase in our domestic budget, which includes critical national 
security functions and commitments to hardworking families.
  My friends ought to know that one-third of the nondefense domestic 
budget goes to national security, veterans, homeland security, and the 
State Department's and the Justice Department's counterterrorism 
initiatives.
  I would also say that supporting housing initiatives and investing in 
education and environmental protection so that our fellow citizens 
don't have to drink water that is contaminated with lead is also a part 
of our national security.
  We ought to have been working in a bipartisan way to resolve all of 
these issues together.
  We need to work to fund the opioid epidemic. What we have done in 
this Congress is given lots of speeches about how terrible this opioid 
epidemic is. We have talked about the need to support our local 
communities.
  We have done a lot of talking, but what we need to do is appropriate 
the necessary money so that local communities can implement the 
strategies to effectively deal with the opioid crisis in their areas. 
We ought to have been focusing on that.
  We need additional veterans funding. Democrats are urging Republicans 
to join us to provide urgently needed resources to veterans facing a 
dire shortfall at the VA, meeting our responsibility to ensure that no 
veteran is left behind or denied the care and opportunities they 
deserve upon return from the battlefield.
  CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and community health 
centers are incredibly important to us and people throughout this 
country. We are calling for immediate reauthorization of these vital 
initiatives, one that doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul, one that doesn't 
say we are going to fund CHIP by taking money away from the prevention 
program that provides moneys for immunizations and dealing with issues 
like lead paint and other issues that affect our kids.
  We need emergency disaster relief that is adequate to meet the needs 
of all the States and localities and territories that have been 
impacted by these terrible natural disasters.
  We need to save Americans' endangered pensions. Millions of 
hardworking Americans' pensions are at risk, and we are calling for 
bipartisan action to enact a responsible reform plan to ensure that 
these struggling pensions will keep on going.
  We also believe that we ought to pass the bipartisan Dream Act that 
we spent a lot of time in the Rules Committee talking about today. 
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi; Minority Whip Steny Hoyer; and the head 
of the Hispanic Caucus, Michelle Lujan Grisham, spent many hours at the 
Rules Committee today. Leader Pelosi was there for 2\1/2\ hours 
testifying on the need to pass the bipartisan Dream Act.
  We ought to do that before we go home for Christmas. There are 
800,000-plus people whose lives are in the balance because, on 
September 7, Donald Trump decided to end protection for the DREAMers.
  Here is what the President I don't think appreciates and what some of 
my colleagues I think don't appreciate, but we learned about this today 
in the Rules Committee: we don't have until March to deal with the 
Dream Act. Each and every day, people are losing their status. On 
average, about 122 a day, we are told.
  So there are people who are here who had the protections under DACA 
who are losing their status, losing their jobs, losing their 
livelihoods, and their lives have been thrown into turmoil.
  Why in the world would we do that?
  The majority of Americans, overwhelmingly Democrats and Republicans 
and Independents, all believe we should protect the DREAMers.
  We heard in the Rules Committee: Well, we need more committee 
deliberation. Again, the President took their protections away on 
September 7. It is now December 21.
  What have you been doing?
  They said: Well, the Judiciary Committee needs to do more hearings. 
Well, what have they been waiting for?
  The Judiciary Committee recently set up a bill, the concealed carry 
reciprocity bill, which allows people from States that have almost no 
standards to issue permits for people to carry concealed weapons to be 
able to go to any State in this country, no matter what those States' 
standards may be, basically endangering my constituents.
  They brought that to the Rules Committee. They had time to bring that 
before the Rules Committee and before the House. There was not a single 
hearing. None.
  We had this tax scam bill that we just voted on where 83 percent of 
the tax breaks go to the top 1 percent of the wealthiest in this 
country. Remember that bill that the President just celebrated with all 
my Republican friends?
  That came before this House, and there wasn't a single hearing on it. 
But now we need to have hearings when it comes to protecting the 
DREAMers.
  It is outrageous. These DREAMers are contributing to the betterment 
of our communities. We should celebrate them. We should value them. 
They have served in our military. They are out front leading disaster 
relief efforts, saving lives. They are working in Fortune 500 
companies. They are going to school. They are valued members of our 
community. And we treat them like this?
  Come on. If we brought the Dream Act to the floor, it would pass with 
Democratic support and a big chunk of Republican support. There is 
absolutely no reason to continue to stall on this issue. All that will 
happen as a result of our stalling is that more people will lose their 
status, more lives will be thrown into turmoil.
  I would just say to my colleagues: It is the Christmas season. This 
is a time, if ever, where the spirit ought to take over, and we ought 
to do something good for the American people, not just for the donors, 
but for the people.
  Giving a tax break to corporations and wealthy people will help with 
the fundraisers, but what we need is to help these people, these 
DREAMers whose lives are in the balance. We can't wait.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, allow 
us to bring up a standalone Dream Act or an amendment that would allow 
the Dream Act to be made in order, and I hope that we can get back to 
regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this time of year folks get rightfully exorcised about 
the issues of the day.
  We all came here to do something for the men and women whom we 
represent back home. Every time we get to the end of a year, we think: 
I have got to get it done; I have got to get it done; I have got to get 
it done. I recognize those passions are going to exist.
  I actually don't believe for a minute that my friend from 
Massachusetts believes my vote in favor of the tax bill had anything to 
do with fundraising or

[[Page 20462]]

my donors. He might believe that about somebody in this Chamber--I hope 
that he does not--but I know he doesn't believe it about me. It just 
isn't true.
  I have been fighting for tax reform since the day I was elected. In 
fact, I ran for this job to fight for tax reform. We do the American 
people a disservice when we suggest something nefarious is going on. 
Sometimes we just disagree, Mr. Speaker, and those disagreements are 
okay. In fact, those disagreements are expected. Our Founders intended 
them, and they created this institution to sort those disagreements 
out. So I hope we won't sell either ourselves or the American people 
short in that regard.
  But I do want to agree with my friend that this is frustrating. It is 
frustrating to be here for a continuing resolution, Mr. Speaker. 
Remember that we passed the National Security and Defense 
Appropriations bill in July of this year. We have waited patiently for 
the Senate to be able to take it up, and it has not.
  We passed all of the appropriations bills, Mr. Speaker, before the 
end of the fiscal year, back in September, and we have been waiting for 
the Senate to take those up. It has not. It is an incredibly 
frustrating time.
  Now, my friend suggested a solution would be bipartisanship. I could 
not agree with him more. It takes 60 votes to move something through 
the Senate. I just barely have over 50 Republicans. The only way these 
funding bills are going to move through the Senate is with bipartisan 
support. For anyone in this Chamber to deny that is going to be to deny 
the reality of math. Bipartisanship is the solution.
  I remember, Mr. Speaker, when my President invited the Democratic 
leadership down to the White House to work on exactly this issue a 
month ago. Folks got frustrated with the tweet he sent out that morning 
and decided they were going to stay home.
  I understand the frustrations. What I don't understand is missing out 
on an opportunity to build this bridge. It happens above my pay grade, 
I am going to confess. To the 700,000 people I represent back home, Mr. 
Speaker, let me go ahead and confess this deal is taking place way 
above my pay grade.
  But it is probably right there at the pay grade of the President of 
the United States, the Speaker of the House, and the minority leader. 
When folks don't show up to the table for the conversation, it makes it 
harder to get there.
  Is there always a good reason to stay home?
  I am sure there is.
  Are there more good reasons to be there?
  I think the answer is: Yes.
  Mr. Speaker, I will advise my friend from Massachusetts that I don't 
have any speakers remaining this morning. Folks have been exhaustibly 
elucidated by the 4 hours of discussion we had this morning, and I am 
prepared to close when he is.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of concerns about the way this process is 
unfolding.
  And, yes, the gentleman is right. I am exorcised. I am exorcised that 
we have gone through all of these gyrations, including being on hold 
trying to figure out what we were going to bring to the floor all night 
last night, and we end up with this: basically kicking the can down the 
road for a few weeks and not dealing with some essential emergency 
priorities that are a concern to most people in this country.
  Again, going back to this tax bill, that is an example of where 
bipartisanship might have been helpful. I don't recall a tax reform 
package--I don't even want to call it reform because, basically, it is 
a giveaway to big corporations and to wealthy special interests--that 
has been rammed through Congress purely on a partisan basis.
  But maybe it had something to do with the fact that Democrats weren't 
welcome to the table.
  Maybe it had to do with the fact that Democrats were locked out.
  Maybe it had something to do with the fact that this so-called 
conference committee was a sham and, when Democrats showed up, a deal 
had already been struck.
  That is not bipartisanship.
  And maybe we are a little bit exorcised because, time and time again, 
when people go before the Rules Committee looking to offer legitimate, 
germane amendments to try to improve legislation, rather than being 
able to have the opportunity to offer those amendments on the floor and 
have a debate, we are shut out all the time.
  Again, this Congress, this Republican Congress, this session, has the 
distinction of being the most closed session in the history of our 
country. That is the distinction.
  So, yes, we are exorcised. And we are exorcised over the fact that, 
as we are about to adjourn for Christmas, hundreds of thousands of 
people, DREAMers in this country, their lives have been thrown into 
turmoil. These are people who have served in our military. They have 
led rescue efforts during these recent hurricanes. They contribute 
greatly to our community. A majority of people in this country want 
them to remain here, and we can't even get a vote on the House floor, 
notwithstanding the fact that we all know that, if we brought it to the 
floor, we would pass it.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has prioritized their tax scam 
bill over reauthorizing the Children's Health Insurance Program, 
community health centers, helping DREAMers, and even funding our 
government, which brings us to where we are now, days before Christmas, 
scrambling to fulfill our most basic responsibilities.
  But we should be doing more here than just trying to keep the lights 
on. We also have a responsibility toward the hundreds of thousands of 
young Americans--they are Americans in every way except on paper--who 
have been betrayed by this administration. We need to pass the Dream 
Act, and we need to do it now. Thirty-four of my Republican colleagues 
have already spoken up and urged Speaker Ryan to help these young 
people. The majority of this House is ready to do the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, here is our chance to do just that. If we defeat the 
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up 
H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. The bipartisan, bicameral legislation has the 
support of the majority of this House and would pass if it were brought 
up for a vote.
  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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am all in favor of keeping our government 
open. The difference that I have with my Republican colleagues is that 
I want to keep it open for everyone.
  Here, at Christmas, we think of the children first, but the children 
are not put first in this underlying bill. The Children's Health 
Insurance Program (CHIP) is barely left on life support.
  There are children out there right now, some with dreaded diseases or 
disabilities, and their access to a family physician is not assured 
because this Congress has not acted on the Children's Health Insurance 
Program. Instead of Christmas cards, they are about to get cancellation 
notices.
  And there are children who were brought here to America, through no 
fault of their own, without a visa. They grew up here. They only know 
this country. They have since passed a criminal background check. They 
had paid a fee, but their future is uncertain. They are called DREAMers 
because they have a dream of giving back to America and being full 
Americans, which they are, in everything but those legal papers.
  And we, in Congress, have our own responsibility. It is a 
responsibility to

[[Page 20463]]

respond to their passionate pleas. We should not support another 
partisan Republican continuing resolution or appropriations process 
that does not assure the future of our 800,000 DREAMers.
  I can tell you, from meeting with them personally, I think of a 
cardiac nurse, I think of a county prosecutor, I think of a number of 
teachers whom I have met and many students, all of whom are DREAMers, 
who want to be full Americans. And I think of the groups in Texas like 
RAICES and TOPS and JOLT and the University Leadership Initiative and a 
number of others that are working with these DREAMers to secure their 
future.
  Even President Trump, in one of his few reasonable tweets, in 
September, said:
  ``Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated, accomplished 
young people who have jobs, some serving in the military?''
  I think the answer here, if given a free vote, Republicans and 
Democrats, the majority would say absolutely not; we need these young 
people.
  This holiday season is one that you would hope would open closed 
hearts to see the humanity in these young people. But amidst all the 
self-congratulatory high-fives and patting on the back yesterday down 
at the White House, nothing was said about the DREAMers. The Republican 
leadership has apparently decided to leave town without doing anything 
for them.
  I believe that the Dream Act, the DACA authorization they have now, 
was terminated by the President just to use them as a bargaining chip. 
That was way back in September. And since that time, the majority has 
had ample opportunity to act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that all of us as Members 
of Congress are eager to return to our families as soon as possible 
across America, but our DREAMers are left with fear and uncertainty 
about returning to their families and about their future.
  These deserving young people should not be used as bargaining chips 
for a wish list of anti-immigrant policies. Let's reject this rule, 
enact the Dream Act, reauthorize CHIP, and offer a truly Merry 
Christmas and Happy New Year to all of America's children.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here, in these cold days outside, it is easy to create a 
lot of rhetorical heat on the inside. I would argue that legislative 
light is what we need more often than not.
  We brought the Children's Health Insurance Program bill to the floor 
that my friend from Texas just referenced, Mr. Speaker. We didn't just 
bring it to the floor; we brought it through committee. We brought it 
through committee, and we passed it. We brought it to the House floor, 
and we passed it. We sent it to the Senate, and there it sits.
  But when it passed the House floor, my friend from Texas voted 
``no.'' He voted ``no.''
  Now, do I believe for a moment that is because he hates children? I 
do not.
  Do I believe for a moment that it is because he doesn't want folks to 
have access to healthcare? I do not. I believe he had legitimate policy 
reasons for deciding not to reauthorize the program then that he has 
just taken to the floor and talked about the merits of reauthorizing.
  It is okay to disagree on those issues, and it is even okay to 
highlight those differences. What is not okay is to describe this 
Chamber as a Chamber that doesn't care. What is not okay is to describe 
this as a Chamber that doesn't act.
  My friend was absolutely right: it is a bipartisan priority to fund 
the Children's Health Insurance Program, and we did. The Senate has not 
acted. It hasn't gotten the full reauthorization done. If we pass the 
continuing resolution today, that funding will continue.
  Let's disagree on those things that we disagree about, but let's be 
honest with ourselves about the legitimacy of those disagreements. 
Let's try to find more light than heat in this new year.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, my dear friend that just spoke with 
reference to acting, let me tell you what action was undertaken with 
reference to CHIP.
  Prevention money was used as the pay-for. So, somehow or another, 
that action doesn't rub some of us in the right way.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Congressional 
Black Caucus to Speaker Paul Ryan.

                                   Congressional Black Caucus,

                                                December 21, 2017.
     Paul Ryan,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the Congressional Black 
     Caucus (CBC), I write today to strongly urge you to provide a 
     more permanent solution for close to 9 million children 
     enrolled in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) 
     and more than 27 million people that visit Community Health 
     Centers (CHC's) for critically needed health care. It is 
     completely irresponsible for Congressional Leaders to have 
     created this crisis. Moreover, it is now unconscionable for 
     Congress to head home for the holidays without taking action 
     to right this wrong.
       The holidays are a time to reflect on how fortunate we are 
     and help those in need. In that vein, the CBC will not 
     support a Continuing Resolution unless CHIP is reauthorized 
     and fully funded for five years and Community Health Centers 
     are reauthorized and fully funded for two years. Moreover, 
     the offsets for these programs must not harm other vulnerable 
     communities by reducing funding for other programs, such as 
     the Prevention Fund. For this to be the state of play one day 
     after giving away $1.5 trillion to huge corporations and the 
     wealthy is absurd and offensive.
       Close to 2 million children across this country are in 
     danger of losing CHIP coverage in January, with another 1 
     million set to lose coverage in February. A short term 
     approach to providing these children and their families with 
     certainty is absolutely irresponsible. Without swift 
     reauthorization and fully funded coverage, young lives hang 
     in the balance. Congress' failure to act will set off a chain 
     of dire-consequences for children, as well as their families, 
     communities, and states. A family without insurance is a 
     family more likely to fall victim to financial crisis related 
     to medical costs, such as bankruptcy.
       Similarly, Community Health Centers play an essential role 
     in low-income communities as they protect and expand access 
     to critical and affordable care. The Community Health Centers 
     Fund (CHCF) provides mandatory funding for federal health 
     centers, which provide primary, dental, and other supportive 
     care in medically underserved areas. Robust and reliable 
     support for Community Health Centers results in more health 
     centers, an increased number of patient visit, and more 
     available services. These services save lives, especially in 
     communities struggling to provide affordable care to poor, 
     largely minority communities.
       The CHCF is even more essential to the more than 27 million 
     people it helps support in light of recent efforts to the 
     dismantle our nation's health insurance market. As you well 
     know, the elimination of the Affordable Care Act's individual 
     mandate will add 13 million uninsured Americans, increase 
     premiums by 10 percent, and make it harder for sick people to 
     get insurance.
       The Congressional Black Caucus has been the conscience of 
     this Congress since its inception in 1971. We have provided 
     moral leadership and courageous advocacy for our constituents 
     and for all Americans that have felt disenfranchised or left 
     behind. At the time of year when we are supposed to be most 
     charitable, it is urgent that Congress act to reauthorize 
     CHIP and Community Health Centers and provide robust funding 
     for both. Children and families do not need to spend the 
     holidays worrying about their health. It is time for Congress 
     to do what it is responsible and moral. Accordingly, the CBC 
     will not support any legislation to prevent a shutdown unless 
     these critical programs are addressed.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Cedric Richmond,
                                                            Chair.

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I lift from it one paragraph that says:

       The holidays are a time to reflect on how fortunate we are 
     and help those in need. In that vein, the Congressional Black 
     Caucus will not support a continuing resolution unless CHIP 
     is reauthorized and fully funded for 5 years and community 
     health centers are reauthorized and fully funded for 2 years.

  Mr. Speaker, this morning in the Rules Committee, beginning at 8--I 
might add, we were noticed that we

[[Page 20464]]

were going to meet last night at 10, but we did not meet, and then we 
came in early this morning--the distinguished minority leader and the 
minority whip, along with the leader of the Hispanic Caucus, appeared 
and stayed for 2\1/2\ hours discussing the fact that we are leaving 
things on the table, but, more specifically, addressing the Deferred 
Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
  But let's talk about the things that we are leaving on the table:
  We are doing nothing about long-term flood insurance.
  We are doing nothing about Perkins loans that have expired.
  We are not funding or addressing the opioid epidemic.
  We are not offering legislation to help save failing pensions in this 
country.
  I talked with some teamsters from Michigan the other day with tears 
in their eyes concerned about their pensions.
  We are doing nothing with reference to long-term, bipartisan 
reauthorizing for CHIP and community health centers.
  We are doing nothing about the FISA reauthorization.
  We are not raising the defense and non-defense spending caps.
  We are leaving Medicare extension on the table.
  And that is just a to-do list that is partial that we are not 
addressing.
  But let me get in the weeds on something that the public doesn't 
quite understand.
  196 people appeared right over here and signed what is called a 
discharge petition to bring DACA to the floor; 34 Members of the House 
of Representatives sent a letter to the Speaker. If you combine those 
numbers, you have 218.
  My distinguished Rules Committee chair and I had a colloquy this 
morning where we discussed that matter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Florida an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HASTINGS. And the fact of the matter is I believe that it would 
pass if it were put on the floor.
  But do you know what is more important? We had 58 closed rules in 
this Congress, completely closed. And to put that into context, we 
averaged 25 closed rules a year in the 4 years the Democrats were in 
charge.
  The Dream Act is a perfect example of this. As Members are well 
aware, we have tried time and time again to get a floor vote on the 
Dream Act.
  Mr. Speaker, we all know that this CR is the last train leaving town. 
You have given millionaires and billionaires help. Let's give the 
DREAMers a Merry Christmas.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend from Florida is a good accountability partner up on the 
Rules Committee. I have learned from his intellect, and I have learned 
from his experience in this Chamber. I value that, and I value his 
friendship.
  When he says that more closed rules have been passed in this Congress 
than any other, he is absolutely right. He is absolutely right. And 
that is worth talking about, as my friend does regularly in the 
committee.
  Unfortunately, we usually just have that half of the conversation. 
What we don't talk about is that many of those closed rules were for 
bills that were so well worked out in a bipartisan way in committee 
that there were no amendments offered, that we had already come 
together in such a collaborative, productive, admirable way that we 
ought to be bragging about instead of denigrating that we didn't have 
amendments that were offered.
  Other bills, Mr. Speaker, were bills that might not have been so 
generally agreed upon. But when my friend the chairman of the Rules 
Committee sends the call out to all 435 Members of Congress and says: 
If you have any ideas, bring them to the Rules Committee. For many of 
those bills, Mr. Speaker, there wasn't one idea suggested, not one idea 
suggested to change the underlying bill.

                              {time}  1300

  So did it come under a closed process?
  Well, of course, it did, if closed means we ask everybody for all of 
their ideas and no one had one, so there was no idea to debate on the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, there are so many ways that we can do better with one 
another, but I would suggest to my friends that the way to do better 
with one another is to build that on a foundation of trust, not a 
foundation of recriminations.
  We have an opportunity in this new year, Mr. Speaker, to turn a page 
in this institution. I want to say, in my time on the Rules Committee, 
Mr. Speaker, I have never had a chairman who worked as hard to open the 
process and hear from Members as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), the current chairman.
  Time and time again, where other folks would have walked away from 
the table, the chairman has stayed there to get input, to hear ideas. 
Time and time again, when the process would have been truncated, he has 
extended it to make sure folks had a chance to have their voice heard.
  I am grateful for that, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the chairman 
for that model that he sets in that committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) to speak on this rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Woodall serves not only the Rules Committee and this 
body in the Republican majority, but he is also our designee to the 
Budget Committee and has excelled in excess of understanding the 
intricate details that not only move this great Nation, but the 
arguments, a balance between them. I appreciate the gentleman very, 
very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer some advice that I just received 
from the Governor of the State of Texas, Governor Abbott, who took time 
to call me. I also want to address the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), my very dear friend.
  During that record-setting year, we also made in order over 560 
amendments. That is 560 amendments that people came to the Rules 
Committee, had literally a committee that engaged them on the substance 
of their ideas, listened to it, believed that that substance had a good 
place for debate on this floor. Not necessarily every idea should be 
vetted here. Sometimes it is vetted in committee, subcommittee. 
Sometimes it is vetted at the Rules Committee, and sometimes we do not 
make those ideas in order.
  This morning was no different. There were a lot of great ideas. As a 
matter of fact, the minority leader, Ms. Pelosi, came to the Rules 
Committee for several hours. The gentleman, the minority whip, Mr. 
Hoyer, came a slightly less amount of time, but no doubt came to the 
Rules Committee and offered us advice about not only what we are doing 
but presented the arguments about what they were for. They were given 
unlimited opportunity to discuss that.
  There was some limit that we had to offer our challenges back, but it 
was an open process, and I appreciate Ms. Pelosi and all the members of 
the committee doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason why I came down is to say--and there are lots 
of stories that go on, but the story that I was just told by the 
Governor of the State of Texas is that Texas--not unlike the islands of 
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, the great State of Florida that 
were in the way of a hurricane--was record-setting rain, 60 inches. It 
lasted 8 or 9 days. It did incredible damage.
  This body has taken time to now study getting money back to those 
affected areas, and the determination that was made by this body is 
some $81 billion. I just found out that the State of Texas has 
calculated their part of the $81 billion, and it is less than 15 
percent of the total. Less than 15 percent of that total will actually 
be going to the largest storm in the history of America.
  I did not offer a complaint. I was surprised. I would have thought it 
would be in the 50 percent realm. I would have thought it would have 
been higher. But what I want to say is that not

[[Page 20465]]

everybody gets everything they want in this town, not even if they are 
the Governor of the State of Texas, with a large delegation like Texas.
  It is a difficult time we all go through, and I offered and expressed 
my confidence to the Governor that I would certainly go look at this. 
It is the first time I learned of this. Less than 15 percent of the 
emergency funds that will be presumptively agreed to today, of this 
huge storm, goes to Texas. I just thought that was worthy of me to take 
time to come and pass on information that I had not known about, 
information that I was provided. It tells us how large the need is in 
this country when the largest storm only gets 15 percent.
  So I am a ``yes.'' I am a ``yes'' for the other 85 percent that is 
not going to be in Texas also. I am a ``yes'' because I have seen the 
fires in California, I have seen the damage from--and Judge Hastings 
kept us up to date. I have been aware of Ambassador Patrick Rooney, who 
talked with us about the devastation; and Tom Rooney in Florida; and 
certainly Byrne Buchanan, who spoke with us about the damage to the 
crops--lots of big problems.
  I am going to vote for the other 85 percent, too, not just the 15 
percent for my home State.
  I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me time to share my ideas 
on the floor. I wish Judge Hastings a Merry Christmas.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), who spent 2\1/2\ hours today in the Rules 
Committee fighting on behalf of the DREAMers.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I also thank all of the members of the Rules Committee for the 
exceptional service they provide to the House in reviewing legislation 
that will come to the floor.
  I particularly want to thank my colleagues on the Democratic side for 
honoring the values of our country by advocating for an amendment to 
include the Dream Act as we go forward. I would hope that most of our 
Members would vote ``no'' on this rule and not allow for the previous 
question to come forward so that it will allow for the Dream Act to be 
considered.
  I want to thank the chairman of the committee and the distinguished 
Members on the Republican side, as well as the Democratic side, for the 
hospitality extended to the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer; the chair of 
the Hispanic Caucus, Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham; and to me.
  At that meeting, Mr. Speaker, I told the colleagues that we are in a 
tradition of having great Democratic and Republican Presidents who have 
been supportive of newcomers to our country and who recognize that 
immigration is the constant reinvigoration of America.
  When people come to our country with their hopes and dreams and 
aspirations to make the future better for their families, they are 
identifying with an American ideal: all of us having the responsibility 
to make the future better for the next generation. And their 
commitment, their courage, their optimism, their determination for a 
better future makes America more American. Every newcomer who comes 
here with that determination makes America more American.
  Among those people are our DREAMers. This is a very discrete group 
that we are hoping to protect in the Dream Act. Certainly, as our 
colleagues acknowledged this morning, we have important work to do on 
comprehensive immigration reform. We have a responsibility to protect 
our borders, North and South, and anything that flies in, East Coast, 
West Coast, and through the Gulf. But the fact is that--as was pointed 
out by our colleague, Congresswoman Lujan Grisham, the chair of the 
Hispanic Caucus: think of the DREAMers as a discrete piece that needs 
protection now and not wait for the entire comprehensive immigration 
reform to be resolved before we deal with this emergency.
  Just as we treat CHIP, 9 million children are depending on CHIP, but 
we are not waiting until we revise the whole healthcare system in order 
to pass CHIP, nor did we. When we passed CHIP, it was before the 
Affordable Care Act had passed.
  But let me say why it is really important for this to happen now. 
Unfortunately--and, really, I was pleased that our Speaker registered 
his disagreement with President Trump when he took the action he did in 
regard to DACA in September. When he did that and said, ``I will give 
Congress until March to pass a law,'' what he didn't understand is that 
he was putting these DREAMers at a distinct disadvantage.
  Every day, over 100, 120-some DACA recipients, DACA-eligible 
recipients, lose their status. That means, if they are working or 
whatever they are doing, they lose their status to do that in our 
country. Over 10,000 have lost status since the President's 
announcement--well over 10,000.
  So we can't wait until March to do this because it had consequences 
known to us but unforeseen by the White House and by the President. And 
I don't think, in his heart, that the President intended to hurt these 
people in the very cruel way that they are being hurt by the actions 
that are being taken.
  We can't wait until March. We need action. We need it soon. We need 
it to be bipartisan. That is what we have been working on--not me; 
Members, Member-driven bipartisan cooperation in trying to find a path 
that addresses the concerns that some have about the border--and we all 
do--and also addresses the Dream Act.
  As the President said: Let's call it DACA.
  Okay. We will call it DACA.
  So here we are. I said at the beginning of my remarks that we have 
been blessed in our country by Presidents who have recognized the value 
of immigration; that our country would be in stagnation if we didn't 
have this constant reinvigoration of visitors to our country.
  When President Obama acted because Congress had not acted to protect 
the DREAMers and their parents, that was really important for him to do 
because Congress had not acted. However, it is important to note that 
President Reagan, when he was President and President George Herbert 
Walker Bush was at that time Vice President, Congress did act through 
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. They did act. And 
President Reagan's observation was they didn't go far enough.
  So he took further executive action called Family Fairness to protect 
people in our country, immigrants in our country. Actually, President 
Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush protected a higher 
percentage of newcomers to our country than President Obama did with 
his DACA and DAPA action, a higher percentage because they understood 
the value to our country of newcomers.
  President Clinton continued all of that. President George W. Bush was 
a champion and continues to be a champion on recognizing the value of 
immigration. He has spoken about it intellectually, with respect, from 
the heart for people coming to our country, and he has urged us to do 
so.
  He couldn't get the cooperation of his own party when he was 
President to cooperate for comprehensive immigration reform, even 
though when we had the power as Democrats, we supported it. But he 
could not get the 60 votes in the Senate. But, nonetheless, he 
continues to be a champion, really, for immigration reform.
  And here we have a new President who campaigned on the backs of 
newcomers to our country and who made immigrants villains. It is a 
complete change from the Republican Party, from a commitment to valuing 
newcomers and diversity in our country. It is a complete departure from 
President Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, President 
George W. Bush, just to name the Republican Presidents.
  So we find ourselves in this situation, but that doesn't change the 
fact that we have a responsibility to all of God's children to treat 
them with respect, and when we can do something to be helpful, we 
should.

                              {time}  1315

  There is harm that is coming to the DREAMers every day, because they 
are losing status. Regardless of what some

[[Page 20466]]

may say, some are being deported. This may be unknown to the President, 
but it is not unknown to us in this Congress.
  I want to thank Congresswoman Lujan Grisham, the chair of the 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and her members. I want to thank 
Congresswoman Judy Chu, the chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific 
American Caucus; Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, who, working with the 
Congressional Black Caucus, has been a champion in that caucus; and all 
of the Members on both sides of the aisle who are striving to find a 
path.
  One path that we have open to us is to defeat this rule, to allow the 
Dream Act to come up, and to put that in the mix as we go forward.
  Again, this isn't an issue, this isn't a bill. It is a value, and 
that is the conversation we had with President Trump. This isn't an 
issue, but it is a value. This is about who we are as a nation and how 
we respect who we are as a nation. That is why, I believe, that 
President Trump will be receptive to signing a bill. He does want--and 
we are all concerned for--border security. We will work with him on 
that, but let's start by putting on the Record the support of this 
House for a recognition that we are immigrants, by and large. Unless 
some of you are Native Americans--and how proud we are of our Native 
American community in our country and how blessed we are--most of us 
come from immigrant families.
  It was interesting to me in doing some reading on some of this. I am 
very proud of my own Italian-American heritage. My grandmother was born 
in Baltimore, Maryland. Her parents were from Venice and Genoa. My 
father's family from Abruzzo. We are very proud of all of that, which 
makes us respect the pride that other people take in their heritage.
  What was interesting to me in recent days, because I remember--I 
didn't suffer this, but I know my father and others did: Italians were 
called ``wops.''
  Do you know what wops means?
  It means ``without papers.'' That is what they were called: without 
papers.
  These people are without papers, but in every way they are American.
  I just want to tell you a couple of stories. One is Fernando Meza 
Gutierrez. Fernando lives in my district. Fernando's family came to the 
U.S. Fernando came to the U.S. when he was 9 years old. In high school, 
Fernando was an AP scholar and received the International Baccalaureate 
Diploma and the Achievement Award in Foreign Language for French.
  Fernando continued to excel academically at Santa Clara University, 
where he graduated cum laude with a double major in biology and French.
  Now a third-year doctoral student at UC San Francisco, Fernando also 
works at UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, where he 
is working hard to provide new insights into many diseases and 
disorders.
  I just want to tell you one other story. Lisette Diaz was just 6 
years old when her family brought her to the U.S. from Chile. Growing 
up in Long Island, Lisette excelled in school and was involved in her 
community. She went on to attend Harvard, where she received numerous 
awards and participated in a variety of extracurricular activities. 
Lisette recently graduated from Harvard with honors.
  Lisette and other DREAMers have so much to contribute to our country, 
but Donald Trump and other Republicans have made their agenda clear. 
They want to shut down DACA and DAPA and deport hundreds of thousands 
of DREAMers and parents of Americans.
  That is what DREAMers think. We don't want them to think that. We 
want them to think that the President understands their value, the 
value of our DREAMers, and the challenges that they face.
  If we don't do something soon, Lisette will be deported back to 
Chile, a country where she hasn't lived since she was 6 years old.
  There are just thousands and thousands and thousands of stories of 
success, of those serving in our military, attending our schools, 
teaching our children, working in high-level positions, because they 
all have that immigrant attitude of hard work, hard work ethic, a work 
ethic, a faith ethic, a family ethic, a sense of community.
  In the sense and spirit of community, let's defeat this rule and 
allow the Dream Act to come forward.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about what isn't in the bill today, and we 
could actually talk a lot longer about what isn't in the bill. It is a 
fairly narrowly focused bill, but what is in there, in addition to 
funding to keep the government operating, is funding for our community 
health centers that we all care so much about; is funding for the 
Children's Health Insurance Program--that is a bipartisan issue across 
this Chamber--is funding for the Special Diabetes Program. Mr. Speaker, 
that is so important to so many families. I can go on and on and on.
  Are there things that are not in this bill?
  Of course there are, and I look forward to coming back with my 
colleagues to address each and every one of those, but there is so much 
good that is in this bill, Mr. Speaker. If we conclude this debate to 
pass this rule, we can get on and make those things a reality.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Barragan).
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding.
  We are in a critical and urgent time. People's lives are on the line.
  On September 5, the President suddenly and cruelly terminated the 
DACA program. Since that date, 13,000 DACA recipients have lost their 
status and their protections, and every day that Congress delays a 
vote, another average of 122 lose their status.
  That is why this is urgent, that is why this is important, that is 
why we need to act now.
  Congress should not wait any longer to act. It cannot turn its back 
on these youths, on these immigrants who are leading productive, 
positive lives, who are giving back to our communities and contributing 
immensely to the economy.
  Congress has an opportunity today to show the world our values, that 
we are going to protect DREAMers, that we are going to stand with these 
young men and women who enrich our country, who only know the United 
States as their home. The nearly 800,000 DREAMers are our doctors, our 
nurses, our teachers, our neighbors, and they serve in our military and 
are protecting us here at home.
  But because Congress has not acted and because this Chamber has 
failed to act on the DACA issue, DREAMers are living in fear and 
uncertainty of their future. They are afraid to go to school. They are 
afraid of losing their loved ones at a moment's notice. They are 
anxious about whether they will be able to continue to earn their 
paychecks and earn a living.
  DREAMers are feeling the pain now. They are experiencing the anxiety 
now. They are being detained now. These are real people.
  Now, I understand their fear and their uncertainty, because, for many 
of us, this hits real close to home. I have 8,000 DREAMers who live in 
my district. I also have a family member who is a DREAMer. Many are 
afraid of being deported to a place where they will be strangers, to a 
country they haven't lived in since they were children.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the 16th time since DACA's termination that 
Democrats are challenging Republicans to take real urgent action to 
protect DREAMers by bringing the bipartisan Dream Act to a vote on this 
floor.
  We must stand up for DREAMers. It is the right thing to do. It is 
what Americans want us to do. They want Congress to protect DREAMers 
from deportation by an overwhelming majority. It is the moral thing to 
do.
  Again, this is a bipartisan issue. I have talked to many of my 
colleagues across the aisle who want to see a vote on this. I believe 
we will pass it overwhelmingly if we could just get this vote.

[[Page 20467]]

  This is a moment of truth for our Nation. I ask my colleagues to vote 
against the previous question so that we can immediately bring the 
Dream Act to the floor and provide relief for the nearly 800,000 
DREAMers in time for the holiday season.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, you likely did, as I did yesterday, get a wonderful 
Christmas card from our friend from California, which I very much 
appreciated. She was there with her beautiful family. I appreciate the 
sincerity of her words today.
  I will just remind this Chamber that we are having that conversation 
for one reason and one reason only. That is because, when Democrats had 
the White House, the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate, but--much like 
Republicans today--didn't have 60 votes to get around the filibuster, 
instead of President Obama and the Democratic leaders in the House and 
the Senate trying to find a bipartisan pathway forward that could get 
60 votes, they chose to craft an administrative solution, one that I 
thought was illegal, one that I thought was unconstitutional, but chose 
to go it alone.
  Mr. Speaker, that is not a blame statement. It is an explanation of 
some systemic challenges that exist in this place.
  I can assure my colleagues, and I am happy to have someone disabuse 
me of the notion, but I have yet to see the issue that we have solved 
by blaming each other more for it. I have yet to see that pathway to 
success.
  The pathway I have seen is when folks turn the cameras off, when they 
roll up their sleeves, when they decide they don't much care who gets 
the credit for a solution, they just want to solve it.
  I will put another one on my colleagues' plate, because, again, I 
don't doubt their sincerity. Raju is one of my constituents. He is here 
on an H1-B visa. His wife, Manju, is here on an H-4 visa. He came to 
this country legally 11 years ago. Every few years, he has to renew his 
visa, which costs thousands of dollars. When his visa expires, when his 
driver's license expires, he has to go back and do it. He is not 
complaining. That is what the law of the land said. When he agreed to 
come here, he agreed to follow the law of the land. He can't start his 
own business. He can't change employers. He is a captive of the visa 
program that he came in on. There is no pathway, Mr. Speaker, for Raju 
and Manju to get the same benefits that my colleagues are arguing so 
passionately for for 800,000 additional people.
  Mr. Speaker, the human stories don't begin and end with the DACA 
program. Again, a problem that President Obama created; not solved, but 
created.
  I can go line by line by line of folks who are facing similar 
challenges, and I question where the justice is when I can name 
constituent after constituent after constituent who has done everything 
right, who has paid every dime the government has asked, who has 
applied for every piece of paperwork that the government has asked, who 
has stood in every line that the government has asked, and there is no 
pathway forward for them.
  Let's not pretend that there is not common ground that we can come 
together on. Let's confess that perhaps we haven't spent enough time 
trying to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, all of us are anxious to go home to our 
families and our celebrations, but more and more Americans are seeing 
every single day, particularly in the last couple days, just how messed 
up the values and priorities of the Republican majority really are.
  They saw the Republicans go off to the White House and high-fiving 
and cheering each other for a tax cut that provides 81 percent of its 
benefits to the wealthiest Americans and that blows about a $1.5-
trillion hole in the budget. That means debt and deficit.
  Who is left with the coal in the stocking?
  We are looking at 9 million children and their parents who are sick, 
who have been worrying about how they are going to have the Children's 
Health Insurance Program. Yes, we extended it now until March. It 
expired in September, but we didn't have time for those children.
  We don't have time for the 800,000 young people who are serving this 
country right now as DACA recipients. We could pass the Dream Act 
today. Let's get our values straight. Let's do better than we are.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from 
Massachusetts that I have no further speakers and I am prepared to 
close when he is.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if the gentleman has any 
time to share.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman that it 
appears I have committed all of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this has been a painful season for so 
many of us, from California to Texas to Florida, Louisiana, to Puerto 
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and so I am still here begging my 
colleagues for those who are begging in Texas.
  Right now, my local officials are letting my constituents from 
Kashmere Gardens share in the public view how desperate they are for 
housing money. So this CR and this emergency supplemental should be 
separated. But the CR, on the other hand, should be funding CHIP 
completely. And DACA, the DREAMers, should be protected completely.
  I introduced a bill when Hurricane Harvey came for $164 billion. That 
is where we should be, and I know that because of the sacrifice and 
loss and devastation. But also, a DREAMer lost his life trying to 
rescue my constituents, so, you see, we have a situation that should be 
corrected across the board. Fix the DREAMers, but provide for the 
hurricane victims.
  I will say that we are going to keep on pushing beyond the $81 
billion. I am glad the $1 billion that I pushed for for small 
businesses is in this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, we have 300,000 homes underwater. 
Puerto Rico has no lights in homes; U.S. Virgin Islands, none, no 
homes. Key West still needs debris picked up.
  What my constituents are saying is, because the lights are out, we 
are forgotten; because DREAMers don't have rights, they are forgotten.
  So I am not going to stand here and ignore our children, 9 million of 
them who need CHIP, or our DREAMers. But I am also going to say that, 
whatever is in this for us, which is not a lot, I am going to keep 
pushing and fighting for my constituents. And the money that we are 
getting, get it to us now--now.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is the Christmas season, so I do want to begin by 
thanking the gentleman from Georgia and the distinguished chairman of 
the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for always being so polite to me and 
to other Democrats on the committee.
  But I want to say, in all candor, that, in spite of that, we are 
disrespected each and every day when our ideas are shut out and, in 
turn, our constituents are disrespected. I represent the same number of 
people as the Speaker of the House, as any Republican and any other 
Democrat in this Chamber, and yet, routinely, we are told that our 
ideas are not welcome.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that every Member of this House, Democrats 
and Republicans alike, are entitled to basic respect. We have just gone 
through the most closed session in the history of our country, more 
than 58 closed rules in this session. Over 1,500 amendments, both 
Democratic and Republican amendments, were blocked. That is not

[[Page 20468]]

what we were promised by the leadership of this House.
  We are disappointed with what we are dealing with today. We are 
disappointed with the inaction and lack of support for the CHIP program 
and the community health centers funding. We think that is inadequate. 
We are disappointed that more funding isn't provided to deal with the 
opioid crisis.
  I could go on and on and on, but today, we are asking the Speaker to 
allow a vote to help the DREAMers, men and women who came here as 
children, who have served in our military, who have been first 
responders saving lives in these disaster relief efforts, 91 percent 
who work and pay taxes. They are important. They are valuable. We 
should celebrate them.
  I would say to my colleagues this is a matter of decency. The right 
and decent thing to do is to help them, not rationalize inaction.
  Please, please, for the sake of all that is good about our country, 
join us in defeating the previous question so we can have an up-or-down 
vote on the Dream Act, so we can actually help these 800,000 people, 
these young individuals who are giving so much to our country. It is 
the right thing to do.
  This is the Christmas season. I hope you are all moved to joining us 
and to helping these people because, as we have learned, each and every 
day that we wait, more and more of them lose their status. They lose 
their jobs. Their lives are thrown into deeper turmoil.
  It is wrong for us to go home and not deal with this. The decent 
thing to do is to vote on the Dream Act.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There has been a lot of productivity this week. There has been a lot 
of work that has gone on this week. I am looking around up there at the 
dais with you, Mr. Speaker. I see a lot of unshaven faces. I'm not just 
taking about Josef. I am talking about folks who intended to shave and 
might not have made it home last night to get that done.
  It takes an incredible amount of staff time to do this. So what Mr. 
McGovern and I do up in the Rules Committee, our staffs have been there 
past midnight time and time again this week and then back in at dawn.
  I wish that more of the American people, Mr. Speaker, could see the 
hardworking, dedicated staff, the team that goes into making all of 
this possible, because I think it would make them proud. I think, in a 
season like this, it would lift them up and make them feel better about 
who we are as a people and the things that we could accomplish 
together.
  One of those young people, Mr. Speaker, is Nate Blake on the Rules 
Committee. He is sitting right here behind me. He is leaving us after 5 
years of service. I want to put that into perspective, Mr. Speaker.
  There is not a staff member up here that can't leave today and get 
better hours and more money going anywhere else in town. You will work 
on Capitol Hill for one reason and one reason only, and that is that 
you believe, if only you work hard enough and long enough, you would 
make America just a little bit better.
  Mr. Blake is one of those believers. We will miss him on the 
committee. It is a great honor for me that his very last rule is to be 
one of mine, and I thank him for his service.
  Mr. Speaker, they often say everything's been said but not everyone 
has said it. We don't need to go down that path today. This House has 
done its job. It has done its job in a collaborative way. It has done 
its job in a way that the American people can be proud of.
  If we pass this rule, we will not only fund the government, send 
money to the troops, send money to community health centers, send money 
to education, send money to courts, send money to the environment; we 
will not only take care of those funding responsibilities; we will also 
provide those dollars needed for those men and women spread out from 
Florida to Texas to California to Puerto Rico to the Virgin Islands. 
There is a real human being behind each and every one of these dollars 
that will go out the door today.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, vote ``yes'' on this rule so 
we can get to that underlying legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Rule, and H.R. 
4667, one of the two underlying bills made in order.
  H.R. 4667 provides $81 billion in aid to respond to the damage caused 
by Hurricanes Irma and Maria, and the wildfires in California.
  I thank the Speaker and Rules Committee Chairman Sessions for acting 
favorably upon my request to bring this emergency disaster supplemental 
to the floor for debate and vote as a stand-alone measure.
  Ever since the widespread and catastrophic destruction of Hurricane 
Harvey, I have been working closely with the Texas Governor and the 
Hurricane Harvey Taskforce to secure the help necessary for the region 
to rebuild.
  I have witnessed firsthand the pain of storm-weary Houstonians who 
lost their homes, their belongings, and in many cases their jobs.
  They are struggling and hurting.
  So this is personal to me.
  The amount of funding provided in the disaster relief package is very 
disappointing because it is not nearly sufficient to ameliorate the 
suffering still being experienced by the people of the communities in 
the areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.
  Congress has had more than three months to develop an aid package 
that is commensurate to the challenge faced by the affected states and 
territories in rebuilding their devastated communities.
  Much of this time has been squandered by the Republican congressional 
leadership's all-consuming focus on ramming through the Republican Tax 
Scam legislation that gives 83 percent of its benefits to the top 1 
percent, raises taxes on working and middle-class families, takes away 
health insurance from 13 million Americans, explodes the deficit by 
$1.5 trillion and the national debt by $1.7 trillion, and will be paid 
for by 5.4 trillion in cuts to vital programs Americans depend on, 
including an imminent $25 billion reduction in Medicare funding.
  Mr. Speaker, on September 6, 2017, ten days after Hurricane Harvey 
struck and joined by 44 of our colleagues, I introduced H.R. 3686, the 
``Hurricane Harvey Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2017,'' which 
provides $174 billion in disaster relief for the areas affected by 
Hurricane Harvey, the worst superstorm ever to strike the mainland 
United States.
  The $174 billion in funding provided by H.R. 3686 represents a 
comprehensive response commensurate to the challenge; specifically, my 
legislation provides relief in the following amounts:
  1. Housing and Community Development Fund: $50 billion
  2. FEMA Disaster Relief Fund: $35 billion
  3. Army Corps of Engineers--Construction: $15 billion
  4. Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies: $13 billion
  5. Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program: $33 billion
  6. Small Business Disaster Loans Program: $2 billion
  7. Emergency Conservation Activities: $650 million
  8. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: $321 million
  9. National Aeronautics and Space Administration: $50 million
  10. Legal Services Corporation: $10 million
  11. Army National Guard: $10 million
  12. Army Corps of Engineers--Civil Investigations: $150 million
  13. Coast Guard: $450 million
  14. National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund: $800 million
  15. EPA Environmental Programs and Management: $2.5 billion
  16. EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund: $7 million
  17. Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund: $15 million
  18. State and Tribal Assistance Grants: $600 million
  19. Employment and Training Services: $100 million
  20. Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund: $2.5 billion
  21. Airport and Airway Trust Fund: $90 million
  22. Federal-Aid Highways Emergency Relief Program: $6.5 billion
  And that is just for Texas and the areas affected by Hurricane 
Harvey; the damage wrought by Hurricane Irma in Florida, and Hurricane 
Maria in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands was nearly as great in 
dollar terms and equal in the level of misery and suffering inflicted 
on the residents.
  Mr. Speaker, on September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria made landfall in 
Puerto Rico,

[[Page 20469]]

along the southeastern coast, near the small town of Yabucoa.
  The devastation wrought on that beautiful Caribbean oasis and its 3.5 
million inhabitants, our fellow citizens of the United States, is 
unimaginable, except perhaps to those of us who have lived through and 
survived similar natural disasters, like Hurricanes Harvey and Katrina.
  At least 48 people have died as a result of the storm as rescue and 
recovery operations proceed, a number likely to rise, especially with 
so many elderly, sick, and very young persons at risk.
  Much of Puerto Rico's population is still without potable drinking 
water and large swaths of the population still lack electrical power.
  Hurricane Maria destroyed 80 percent of Puerto Rico's agricultural 
industry, including banana, plantain and coffee crops, which translates 
into lost income of approximately $780 million.
  On August 30, 2017, Hurricane Irma struck, inflicting horrific damage 
on the U.S. Virgin Islands of St. Thomas, St. Croix, and St. John, the 
Caribbean nations of Barbuda, St. Maarten, Cuba, and Anguilla, before 
making landfall in the Florida Keys.
  In Florida alone, 6.4 million people were told to evacuate to safety, 
leading to days of jammed highways and frantic searches for gasoline 
amid one of the nation's largest ever emergency evacuations.
  At least 124 persons are known to have lost their lives in Hurricane 
Irma, more than 200,000 Floridians took refuge in shelters, and nearly 
6.5 million homes and businesses were without power.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not yet know the full extent of the damage and 
devastation suffered by our fellows Americans in Florida, the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricanes Irma and 
Maria.
  But what we do know is that the costs of recovery and reconstruction 
will be extensive, best estimates place the cost in the range of $50-
$100 billion.
  This puts in perspective the inadequacy of the amount of disaster 
relief provided under H.R. 4667 and why more, much more, must be done.
  Mr. Speaker, right now, at this very moment, approximately 300,000 
Texans--in Port Arthur, in Port Aransas, in Houston and Harris County--
remain homeless or are living in substandard homes with blue tarp roofs 
and infected with mold.
  Today, residents of the Cashmere Gardens community are meeting with 
local government officials to highlight their plight and those of other 
residents in the northeastern part of Houston.
  They are angry and frustrated and anxious, and who can blame them?
  Mr. Speaker, this is personal to them; and it is personal to me.
  That is why right now my highest priority is to ensure that funding 
that has been made available expeditiously gets in the hands of local 
governments so that relief can deliver the resources and services so 
desperately needed.
  And I will be working with the Texas General Land Office and HUD 
Secretary Carson to relieve the emergency housing crisis in my 
congressional district and state.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the bipartisan leadership of both 
Chambers, and my colleagues in the Texas congressional delegation for 
their diligence and commitment in bringing this package to the floor 
for debate and vote.
  I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey, and Speaker 
Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi, and their Senate counterparts for 
the work that has been done thus far and for their assistance in the 
work that lies ahead.
  I also thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey, and T-
HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Diaz-Balart, and Energy and 
Water Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Simpson and Ranking Member 
Kaptur for including in the legislation before us the following 
beneficial measures that I requested, including:
  1. Authority to establish and implement a $1 billion pilot program to 
provide small business disaster recovery grants, modeled on H.R. 3930, 
the ``Hurricane Harvey Small Business Recovery Grants Act,'' 
legislation I introduced on October 3, 2017 and co-sponsored by 16 of 
our colleagues.
  2. $75 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Investigations 
account, which is to be used in areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey, 
Irma, and Maria, and can be used to finance the $3 million Houston-Area 
Watershed Assessment Study I have worked to secure and previously 
approved by the House.
  3. The bill also includes helpful legislative language to ensure that 
in awarding CDBG-Disaster Relief funds to states, the Secretary of HUD 
should to the maximum extent practicable award grants to units of local 
government and public housing authorities that have the financial and 
administrative capacity to manage a grant awarded under the program.
  Let me describe briefly some of the major provisions contained in the 
Disaster Relief Supplemental:
  1. FEMA Disaster Relief Fund: $27.5 billion to provide critical 
funding to assist the ongoing federal disaster response. Allows up to 
$4 billion to be provided for Community Disaster Loans (CDLs).
  2. Community Development Block Grants Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR): 
$26.1 billion for housing and infrastructure needs, $13.56 billion for 
grants to states, tribes, and territories for unmet housing needs and 
business losses.
  3. $12.5 billion for mitigation efforts to help communities protect 
against future disasters.
  4. This funding can provide for housing elevation, buyouts in the 
flood plain, water/sewer infrastructure enhancements, public 
infrastructure hardening (e.g. stormproofing public buildings).
  5. Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief: $1.4 billion to 
address all current damages to federal highways caused by designated 
disasters.
  6. $12.11 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to repair existing 
damages by natural disasters and for studies and projects to reduce the 
risk of future natural disasters, $75 million to expedite studies to 
help mitigate future disaster damage.
  7. 2.9 billion to help displaced students get back to school. Funding 
can be used for both public and private schools.
  8. $3.8 billion for agriculture assistance.
  9. $1.66 billion for Small Business Administration Disaster Loans to 
assist small businesses and homeowners repair or replace real estate, 
personal property, machinery and equipment, and inventory and business 
assets.
  Mr. Speaker, there is much more work to be done in my city of 
Houston, and across the areas affected by the terrible, awesome storm 
that will be forever known simply as Hurricane Harvey, and by 
Hurricanes Irma and Maria.
  That is why I am disappointed that only $81 billion is being provided 
at this time.
  That is why it must be emphasized and understood that this can only 
be understood as a partial response because much more funding will be 
needed to provide our fellow Americans in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, 
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands the help and support they need 
to restore their communities to their previous greatness.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 670 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
        Sec. 8. 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. 9. 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

[[Page 20470]]

     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,
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adopting the resolution, if ordered;
  Suspending the rules and passing S. 1393; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 188, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 704]

                               YEAS--232

     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 (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
     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
     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)
     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
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     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
     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.
     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
     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
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     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--11

     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Foster
     Granger
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Napolitano
     Pocan
     Renacci
     Smith (TX)
     Suozzi

                              {time}  1402

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 188, not voting 15, as follows:

[[Page 20471]]



                             [Roll No. 705]

                               AYES--228

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     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
     Gowdy
     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
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     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)
     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

                               NOES--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     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
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     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.
     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
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     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)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     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--15

     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Foster
     Garamendi
     Gosar
     Granger
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Napolitano
     Palmer
     Pascrell
     Pocan
     Renacci
     Smith (TX)
     Suozzi


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1410

  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.

                          ____________________