[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2652-2659]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 43, PROVIDING FOR 
  CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF FINAL RULE BY SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 
HUMAN SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 69, PROVIDING 
   FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF FINAL RULE OF DEPARTMENT OF THE 
INTERIOR; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 
                  17, 2017, THROUGH FEBRUARY 24, 2017

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 123 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 123

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 43) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule 
     submitted by Secretary of Health and Human Services relating 
     to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients 
     in selecting subrecipients. All points of order against 
     consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 69) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule 
     of the Department of the Interior relating to ``Non-
     Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and 
     Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska''. 
     All points of order against consideration of the joint 
     resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     February 17, 2017, through February 24, 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.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 123 provides for a rule to 
consider two Congressional Review Act resolutions which will undo 
burdensome and harmful regulations put into place by the Obama 
administration during the final hours of his Presidency. The rule 
brings before the House these resolutions so that Congress may remove, 
through the proper legislative process, rules promulgated by 
bureaucrats who remain unaccountable to the American people. This 
process allows those who are accountable--the elected Representatives 
in the Congress--to fight for their constituents' rights and liberties.
  House Resolution 123 provides for a closed rule for each of the 
Congressional Review Act resolutions, both H.J. Res. 43 and H.J. Res. 
69, the standard procedure for such resolutions, since the sole purpose 
of each is to remove a harmful regulation from the Federal Register.
  The rule allows for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the 
majority and the minority leader or their designees, for H.J. Res. 43, 
and 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the Chair and the ranking 
member of the Committee on Natural Resources, for H.J. Res. 69. On each 
resolution contained in the rule, the minority is afforded the 
customary motion to recommit.
  H.J. Res. 43 is a joint resolution which would repeal the Obama 
administration's midnight rule that takes away States' ability to 
direct funding within their own borders to certain healthcare providers 
that conform to the States' values.
  In her final days in office, Secretary Mathews Burwell pushed forward 
a rule that would require States to fund, with public dollars, 
facilities that perform abortions, potentially against the will of the 
people of that given State. This flies in the face of the 10th 
Amendment which grants to States the authority to make such decisions 
within their borders and to prioritize which healthcare providers 
should receive funding based on the greatest need in their own 
communities.
  Those of us who care about the carefully crafted Federal system which 
our Founding Fathers set up, which allows different States to operate 
differently based upon their own values and priorities, recognize the 
Obama rule for what it is: a power grab by the Federal Government. This 
is why the House will take up this resolution today--to continue to 
fight for states' rights--and will repeal this burdensome regulation 
that ties the hands of every State legislature and ties the hands of 
every Governor in the Nation.
  H.J. Res. 69 is a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal an 
overreaching regulation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 
which usurps Alaska's ability to manage its own lands within its own 
borders. Federal law has long recognized that Alaska--that Alaska--and 
her elected officials are in the best position to make the decisions on 
what actions to permit on the public lands in that State, whether those 
lands are Federal, State, or private.
  Despite this long precedent, codified by Congress in the Alaska 
National Interest Land Conservation Act, the Obama administration moved 
forward in its waning days with a rule that imposes Federal 
restrictions on lands

[[Page 2653]]

that have been, up until the end of the Obama administration, 
successfully regulated by the State of Alaska. Like H.J. Res. 43, this 
resolution recognizes the important 10th Amendment protections put in 
place by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution which protects 
states' rights to govern within their own borders.
  The Congressional Review Act is an important tool in maintaining 
accountability at the Federal level. Its necessity has never been more 
apparent than over the past few weeks where this Congress has needed to 
step in and remove burdensome and unbalanced regulations put in place 
by President Obama and his team just as they were walking out the door.
  House Republicans today will stand up for the rights of our 
constituents against an out-of-control Federal bureaucracy. I urge my 
colleagues to support today's rule and the two underlying Congressional 
Review Act resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes.
  Before I start, I include in the Record a letter from over 20 
healthcare provider organizations regarding the danger of cutting 
certain providers off from title X funding because they also provide 
abortion with private funds.

                                                 February 3, 2017.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Charles Schumer,
     Senate Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, Leader Schumer and 
     Leader Pelosi: As organizations representing health care and 
     public health professionals and the people they serve across 
     the country, we strongly oppose any effort to prevent Planned 
     Parenthood health centers from participating in federal 
     health programs, including Medicaid and the Title X family 
     planning program. Any proposal to exclude Planned Parenthood 
     from public health programs will severely curtail women's 
     access to essential health care services, including family 
     planning, well-woman exams, breast and cervical cancers 
     screenings, and HIV testing and counseling. At a time when 
     there is much uncertainty about the future of affordable 
     health care in our country, it is dangerous to cut off access 
     to the life-saving preventive care that Planned Parenthood 
     provides to some of our nation's most vulnerable patients.
       Planned Parenthood health centers play a crucial role in 
     improving the health and lives of people across the country. 
     In fact, 2.5 million women, men and young people rely on 
     Planned Parenthood for health care every year. For many 
     women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of care--
     offering basic preventive services that are fundamental to 
     women's health and well-being. More than 50% of Planned 
     Parenthood health centers are in areas with health 
     professional shortages, rural or medically underserved areas. 
     In 2014 alone, Planned Parenthood health centers provided 
     nearly 400,000 cervical cancer screenings and more than 
     360,000 breast exams. Additionally, Planned Parenthood 
     provides contraceptive services for over 2 million patients 
     and more than 4 million tests and treatments for sexually 
     transmitted infections, including HIV. These services improve 
     women's health, prevent an estimated 579,000 unintended 
     pregnancies, and decrease infant mortality.
       Policies that would exclude Planned Parenthood from public 
     health funding would hurt millions of patients and undermine 
     health care access in communities across the country. 
     Limiting access to Planned Parenthood's approximately 650 
     health care centers across the country would prevent patients 
     from having timely access to basic preventive health care 
     services. Approximately 60 percent of Planned Parenthood 
     patients access care through Medicaid and Title X, in 
     addition to those who rely on other essential programs, 
     including maternal and child health programs and Centers for 
     Disease and Prevention (CDC) breast and cervical cancer 
     screening programs. In some states, Planned Parenthood is the 
     only provider participating in Title X, and more than 50 
     percent of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in a 
     medically underserved or health professional shortage area. 
     Because federal law already requires health care providers to 
     demonstrate that no federal funds are used for abortion, 
     prohibitions on funding for preventive care at Planned 
     Parenthood health centers will only devastate access to these 
     life-saving services.
       In addition to limiting patients access to health care, 
     defunding Planned Parenthood is not cost effective. The 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 
     approximately 390,000 women would lose access and up to 
     650,000 patients could face reduced access to preventive 
     health care within a year should Congress act to block all 
     Medicaid patients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood 
     health centers. The CBO also projects that excluding Planned 
     Parenthood health centers from receiving reimbursement 
     through the Medicaid program would result in a net cost to 
     taxpayers of $130 million over 10 years because of the 
     increase in unintended pregnancies without the contraceptive 
     care provided by Planned Parenthood. Other publicly funded 
     health centers would not be able to compensate for the loss 
     of affordable family planning and reproductive health care 
     services provided by Planned Parenthood.
       Every day, we see the harmful impact that unequal access to 
     health care has on women and communities across the country, 
     and we therefore strongly support policies that improve 
     access to affordable, quality health care. Policies that 
     would deny Planned Parenthood public health funds only serve 
     to cut millions off from critical preventive care, and we 
     strongly oppose any effort to do so. We also recognize this 
     as part of a broader effort to undermine access to safe, 
     legal abortion and curtail access to other reproductive 
     health care by limiting the ability of abortion providers to 
     participate in public health programs.
           Sincerely,
       American Academy of Nursing, American Academy of 
     Pediatrics, American College of Nurse-Midwives, American 
     Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical 
     Student Association, American Medical Women's Association 
     (AMWA), American Nurses Association, American Psychological 
     Association, American Public Health Association, American 
     Society for Reproductive Medicine, Association of 
     Reproductive Health Professionals, Doctors for America, GLMA: 
     Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality.
       Midwest Access Project, The National Alliance to Advance 
     Adolescent Health, National Family Planning & Reproductive 
     Health Association, National Medical Association, National 
     Physicians Alliance, North American Society for Pediatric and 
     Adolescent Gynecology (NASPAG), Nurse Practitioners in 
     Women's Health, Nursing Students for Sexual & Reproductive 
     Health, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Society for 
     Adolescent Health and Medicine, Society for Maternal-Fetal 
     Medicine, Society of Family Planning.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 
myself and 161 other Members to Speaker Ryan opposing the Republican 
majority's efforts to undermine title X family planning programs and 
women's access to health care.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, February 14, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan: We write to express our grave concern 
     for efforts to undermine Title X family planning. Despite 
     promises to focus on jobs and the economy, Republicans have 
     started the 115th Congress with a total assault on women's 
     choices, access to care, and economic security by:
       Charging ahead to sabotage and dismantle the Affordable 
     Care Act (ACA) while making no promises to preserve vital 
     protections for women;
       Providing little to no details on their plans to replace 
     ACA, while making a point to announce that their ACA repeal 
     package will block access to Planned Parenthood, a high-
     quality, long-trusted provider of reproductive health 
     services;
       Rushing to impose and dramatically expand the global gag 
     rule, harming women around the world; and
       Advancing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion 
     Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R. 7) through the House, 
     effectively banning private insurance companies from covering 
     comprehensive reproductive health services.
       Now, with their most recent effort to weaken the Title X 
     national family planning program through the Congressional 
     Review Act, Republicans have demonstrated that they will stop 
     at nothing to limit women's access to vital health care. 
     Sadly, this includes contraception and family planning 
     services that all women need.
       For more than 40 years, Title X has served as a cornerstone 
     of safety-net care. As the only dedicated source of federal 
     funding for family planning, Title X allows a diverse network 
     of providers to deliver high-quality care to low-income, 
     uninsured, or underinsured individuals and to those seeking 
     confidential care. In 2014 alone, Title X-funded clinics 
     helped prevent approximately 904,000 unintended pregnancies, 
     326,000 abortions, and 439,000 unplanned births. In addition 
     to direct clinical care, Title X also supports critical 
     infrastructure needs for health centers, including new 
     medical equipment and

[[Page 2654]]

     staff training that are not reimbursable under Medicaid and 
     commercial insurance. This infrastructure is vital to 
     ensuring safe, quality care at health centers which serve and 
     provide basic health services to high-need populations.
       Throughout both Democratic and Republican administrations, 
     Title X has been interpreted to prohibit state actions that 
     block providers or classes of providers from participating in 
     a Title X project based on factors unrelated to a provider's 
     qualifications to perform the required services. The networks 
     include providers ranging from state, county, and local 
     health departments as well as hospitals, family planning 
     councils, Planned Parenthood affiliates, federally qualified 
     health centers and other private non-profit organizations. In 
     fact, in instances when states have passed laws to limit 
     provider participation in Title X, federal courts have 
     consistently held that those state laws are contrary to, and 
     preempted by, federal law.
       In response to a growing number of states targeting family 
     planning providers for exclusion from key federal health 
     programs, including Title X, the previous Administration 
     proposed the regulation ``Compliance with Title X 
     Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting 
     Subrecipients.'' The regulation, which was finalized in 
     December 2016, helps ensure patient access to family planning 
     services and supplies through qualified providers by 
     reiterating that ``no recipient making subawards for the 
     provision of services as part of its Title X project may 
     prohibit an entity from participating for reasons other than 
     its ability to provide Title X services. During the 
     rulemaking process, the Department of Health and Human 
     Services received more than 145,000 comments, the vast 
     majority of which supported the rule.
       Women across the United States, and the men who support 
     them, have had enough. It is unconscionable that this common 
     sense clarification has become a political football for 
     members of Congress who want to limit women's access to 
     comprehensive reproductive health care. We urge you to stand 
     in support of women and oppose this assault on contraceptive 
     access and care.
           Sincerely,
       Judy Chu, Louise Slaughter, Diana DeGette, Frank Pallone, 
     Jr., Earl Blumenauer, Suzan DelBene, Lois Frankel, Alcee L. 
     Hastings, Brenda L. Lawrence, Sean Patrick Maloney, Jerry 
     McNerney, Danny K. Davis, Eliot L. Engel, Raul M. Grijalva, 
     William R. Keating, Barbara Lee, Doris Matsui, Gwen Moore, 
     Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jan Schakowsky.
       Jackie Speier, Peter A. DeFazio, Katherine Clark, Dina 
     Titus, Linda T. Sanchez, Mike Quigley, Mark Pocan, Grace F. 
     Napolitano, Alma S. Adams, Mark Takano, Grace Meng, Yvette D. 
     Clarke, Kathleen M. Rice, Brian Higgins, Debbie Wasserman 
     Schultz, Pete Aguilar, Betty McCollum, Lucille Roybal-Allard, 
     Suzanne Bonamici, Luis V. Gutierrez, Raja Krishnamoorthi.
       Scott H. Peters, Anna G. Eshoo, James P. McGovern, John 
     Yarmuth, Wm. Lacy Clay, Gene Green, Jimmy Panetta, Jose E. 
     Serrano, Joseph P. Kennedy, III, Carol Shea-Porter, Jared 
     Huffman, Nita M. Lowey, Carolyn B. Maloney, Niki Tsongas, 
     Andre Carson, Jerrold Nadler, Chellie Pingree, Zoe Lofgren, 
     Seth Moulton, Kurt Schrader, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger.
       Sander M. Levin, Rick Larsen, Bill Foster, Frederica S. 
     Wilson, Adam Smith, David Scott, Pramila Jayapal, Paul Tonko, 
     Kathy Castor, Marc A. Veasey, Ted W. Lieu, Peter Welch, Ami 
     Bera, Eddie Bernice Johnson, G.K. Butterfield, Steven Cohen, 
     Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Daniel T. Kildee, Beto 
     O'Rourke, Julia Brownley.
       Marcia L. Fudge, Tony Cardenas, Joseph H. Crowley, Marcy 
     Kaptur, Alan Lowenthal, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Albio Sires, Eric 
     Swalwell, Joyce Beatty, Ron Kind, Pete Visclosky, Cedric L. 
     Richmond, Al Green, Darren Soto, Juan Vargas, Mike Doyle, 
     Bradley S. Schneider, Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Raul Ruiz, 
     Elizabeth H. Esty.
       Salud Carbajal, Robert A. Brady, Derek Kilmer, Gregory W. 
     Meeks, Emanuel Cleaver, Theodore E. Deutch, Mike Thompson, 
     Hakeem Jeffries, Adriano Espaillat, David N. Cicilline, Tim 
     Ryan, Val Butler Demings, Adam B. Schiff, Brad Sherman, Rosa 
     DeLauro, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Jim Himes, Donald Norcross, 
     Michelle Lujan Grisham, Matt Cartwright.
       John Conyers, Jr., Gerald E. Connolly, Debbie Dingell, 
     David Loebsack, Stephen F. Lynch, Keith Ellison, Mark 
     DeSaulnier, John Garamendi, Denny Heck, Jamie Raskin, Nydia 
     M. Velazquez, Sheila Jackson Lee, David E. Price, James R. 
     Langevin, Colleen Hanabusa, Robin L. Kelly, Terri Sewell, Ben 
     Ray Lujan, Josh Gottheimer, Susan Davis.
       Cheri Bustos, Michael Capuano, Jacky Rosen, Norma J. 
     Torres, Donald M. Payne, Jr., A. Donald McEachin, John Lewis, 
     Joe Courtney, Ruben J. Kihuen, Brendan F. Boyle, Jared Polis, 
     Ann McLane Kuster, Jim Cooper, Charlie Crist, Anthony Brown, 
     Filemon Vela, Ed Perlmutter, Lisa Blunt Rochester, John 
     Sarbanes, John B. Larson.
                                              Members of Congress.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the majority is in the midst of an 
unprecedented and relentless assault on women's health--and many other 
regulations while we are at it--that are being overturned every day 
here.
  Although it pledged to govern by prioritizing jobs and the economy, 
the majority is, instead, escalating its war on women with H.J. Res. 
43, a dangerous continuation of its never-ending crusade against access 
to health care for women.
  The majority started the 115th Congress by moving quickly to 
eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, a law that finally barred insurance 
companies from treating women as being a preexisting condition. Without 
this law, women once again would pay a higher rate for coverage than 
men.
  Think about that for a moment. If everybody doesn't know it, before 
this law, single women paid from 10 to 57 percent more than men for 
their health insurance in States that allowed gender rating. A lot of 
people don't understand this, but it costs American women nearly a 
billion dollars every year. But Republicans are rushing to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act without anything to take its place.
  The majority has also advanced H.R. 7, a sweeping bill that would go 
beyond even the Hyde amendment, a 40-year provision that has been 
around for four decades too long.
  This legislation wouldn't just make this amendment permanent; it 
would also place unprecedented limits on women's access to reproductive 
health services even if they wanted to pay out of their own pockets to 
access constitutionally protected abortion services.
  These moves by the majority, along with the President signing a 
dramatic expansion of the global gag rule immediately after taking 
office, have brought millions of people pouring into the streets in 
protest.
  During the National Women's March, millions of people marched all 
across the country and even around the globe to defend women's rights. 
These marches were likely the largest day of protests in American 
history. More than half a million people took to the streets right here 
in the Nation's Capital. They were peaceful, without a single arrest 
reported anywhere in the country.
  Far from respecting those rights, the majority is today considering a 
measure that marks an entirely new front in their war against women's 
rights. This is the most serious threat facing women so far in this 
Congress, and it is only February.
  Programs supported by title X help provide lifesaving preventative 
healthcare services like contraception, cancer screening, and STD 
testing to the men and women who need them most.
  It is outrageous that the majority today is trying to allow 
conservative State legislatures to pick and choose who can provide this 
essential care with Federal money. That is one of the worst things in 
the world. The luck of the draw of where you live will determine 
whether or not you have access that is entitled to all people from the 
Federal money. This would threaten health centers from coast to coast.
  Mr. Speaker, we are facing the same problem today we faced for a very 
long time: men in blue suits and red ties determining what women can 
and should do when it comes to their own health. They believe the 
majority of persons--women--in the United States are incapable of 
making their own decisions.
  Do you think that about your own mother or your wife?
  Because Washington, D.C., is controlled by this Republican majority, 
the stakes for women are higher today than they have been in 
generations, as we turn over laws passed by the elected government of 
the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders in Congress turn a deaf ear to the 
majority of Americans who oppose this dramatic government intervention 
into women's health care. They, unfortunately, have the votes to pass 
it, but they will have to reckon with the overwhelming majority of the 
public who understands it is time for the government to get out of the 
business of taking away women's healthcare rights.

[[Page 2655]]

  Mr. Speaker, let me take a personal moment to speak about the 
departure of a long-time member of my staff on the Rules Committee. I 
have always believed that this committee is like family and that we 
have one of the most respected staffs on Capitol Hill. Adam Berg, the 
deputy staff director and counsel on the Democratic staff personifies 
this.
  After a decade of working for the Rules Committee, Adam is beginning 
a new chapter on a different committee in the House of Representatives. 
His knowledge and guidance these last years have been immeasurable.
  During his time here, he has married his wife, Erika, who is 
beautiful and talented, and became a father to his daughter, Ariel, who 
was singing songs with her mother at the age of 3 months. That is a 
precocious child.
  Adam has played a key role as this committee brought landmark 
legislation to the floor of the House, including Dodd-Frank, the 
Affordable Care Act, and legislation to raise the Federal minimum wage.
  The committee wouldn't have been as effective without Adam's counsel, 
and he will be greatly missed. I wish him nothing but the best in his 
new endeavor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, 
which would enable States to discriminate against healthcare providers 
and deny women access to critical healthcare services.
  This rule would put the only Federal program exclusively dedicated to 
family planning and reproductive health services in jeopardy. It 
reverses the Health and Human Services title X rule prohibiting 
discrimination against title X healthcare providers. It would have 
devastating healthcare consequences.
  In 2015, 88 percent of patients at title X clinics received 
subsidized or no-charge care, and many of these clinics provide primary 
health care in addition to family planning services. This could upend 
public health networks in communities across the country.
  Supporters of this amendment claim that other health providers can 
absorb the clients who would lose access to their title X clinics. This 
is false. Community healthcare centers have said that they do not have 
the capacity, and they are often not located near these patients.
  We need to protect these healthcare providers. We need to uphold our 
responsibility to the American people to provide critical services to 
those who need them. I cannot and will not support this rule or this 
resolution. It is detrimental to women's health in this country.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out that H.J. Res. 43 would repeal 
the Obama administration's rule and allow States to enjoy the freedom 
and flexibility to distribute title X grant money in a way that serves 
the needs of their constituents.
  Just in the way of background, December 16, 2016, the Obama 
administration finalized a rule that prevents States from eliminating 
abortion providers from title X grant distributions. Title X is a 
family planning program authorized in 1970, and was intended to provide 
family planning services to low-income women. The Obama rule was widely 
perceived as an attempt by the Obama administration to require States 
to fund Planned Parenthood, the Nation's largest abortion business.
  Prior to the Obama administration's rule, States were free to direct 
their title X funds to healthcare providers that did not participate in 
abortion. When States had this freedom, they were able to choose to 
invest in women's health care instead of investing in Big Abortion.
  States should be able to choose to prioritize family planning funds 
to health clinics that offer a full range of healthcare services, 
including family planning, but do not participate in abortion.
  States can fully support family planning and other health services 
without funding abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Planned 
Parenthood only comprises 13 percent of approximately 4,100 title X 
service sites.
  Redirecting funds away from abortion providers does not reduce funds 
for the title X program. When States set criteria that eliminates 
abortion providers from title X distributions, those funds are then 
directed to other clinics.
  Eighty-seven percent of current title X service sites are comprised 
of local health departments, local hospitals, and Federally qualified 
health centers.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I think I need to make this point one more time. I 
really believe that everybody in this House understands that not a dime 
of Federal money is used for abortions. It never has been, never will. 
There is meticulous care taken by Planned Parenthood to separate those 
funds. They have never been questioned in any way by the IRS as to how 
those funds are being used.
  I am sick and tired of everybody saying you can't give anything to 
Planned Parenthood. The money that goes to Planned Parenthood from this 
Federal Government goes to reimburse for services rendered for the 
things I had talked about before: cervical cancer tests, cancer tests 
of all sorts, and health care that they cannot get anywhere else, such 
as screening for STDs. That is totally separate.
  Yet, that fable that Federal money is used for abortions if you fund 
Planned Parenthood is totally false. I think it is time that grownups 
that can read in the House of Representatives do away with that notion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cardenas).
  Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against this rule 
and H.J. Res. 69, which we will be debating tomorrow.
  Last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service updated its regulations 
for national wildlife refuges in Alaska to prohibit the cruelest 
killing methods of wolves, grizzly bears, and other native mammals in 
Alaska.
  The rule FWS put forward makes sense. It even makes clear that it 
does not apply to subsistence hunting or restrict the taking of 
wildlife for public safety purposes or in defense of property. Yet, 
here we are, just 6 months later, and Republicans are pushing through 
this resolution to overturn the rule and make egregious and cruel 
hunting methods common practice in Alaska.
  They are inhumane methods, such as denning of wolves and their pups, 
using airplanes to scout and shoot grizzly bears, and trapping grizzly 
bears with steel-jawed traps. These cruel methods should never be 
allowed anywhere. This resolution is irresponsible and inhumane.
  As with other Congressional Review Act resolutions, H.J. Res. 69 will 
have a chilling effect. This and future administrations would be 
prohibited from ever issuing a similar rule, making inhumane and 
reprehensible hunting methods the law of the land.
  This resolution handcuffs our Federal wildlife managers from 
protecting our refuges, our national resources, and our wildlife. We 
must ensure that our children and grandchildren will someday enjoy the 
majestic national beauty of the native mammals in Alaska and across our 
great Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and also vote ``no'' on H.J. 
Res. 69.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reference a letter that was sent to Speaker Paul Ryan 
and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy by a number of sports-related 
organizations.
  They say: ``We write representing organizations that collectively 
include millions of wildlife conservationists . . . wildlife 
enthusiasts, and wildlife scientists, in strong support of H.J. Res. 49 
from Cong. Young of Alaska. . . . Our community exhausted all Executive 
Branch appeals and remedies

[[Page 2656]]

urging the FWS to slow down the Proposed Rule, and revise it to reflect 
a proposal mutually agreed to by the State of Alaska and the FWS; all 
to no end. It is time for Congress to nullify this final rule.''
  They go on to say: ``This final rule boldly preempts the authority of 
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to manage wildlife for both 
recreational and subsistence hunting on NWRs, which authority of the 
state is affirmed by Congress in the Alaska Statehood Act, the Alaska 
National Interests Land Conservation Act, and the National Wildlife 
Refuge System Improvement Act. The FWS final rule was premised on a 
meeting as a priority the FWS policy on Biological Integrity, Diversity 
and Environmental Health. . . . Many members of our organizations enjoy 
Alaska's bounty of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for 
unrivaled hunting, fishing and outdoor experiences. The sustainable 
management of these natural resources needs to be led by the State 
working in cooperation with the FWS. We urge that you favorably 
consider H.J. Res. 49 which will restore the jurisdictional state-
federal relationship as Congress has previously directed.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Panetta).
  Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against restricting 
the family planning services that are provided by title X.
  Just prior to signing title X into law, back in 1970, President 
Richard Nixon recognized how essential family planning was to public 
health. He actually sent a message to Congress telling them, ``no 
American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance 
because of her economic condition.'' Last year, Mr. Speaker, President 
Obama reaffirmed that sentiment by making family planning services a 
part of basic health care, regardless of where one lives. Although 
Presidents Nixon and Obama couldn't be more divided in their politics, 
even they were united behind title X. I believe this is understandable, 
considering how title X ensures basic preventive health care and family 
planning services for 4 million low-income people every year.
  In my district, title X family planning services saves an average of 
$7 on Medicaid-related costs for every dollar of Federal investment. 
That means that clinics in my district, like Mar Monte, are able to 
help more women and men receive a full range of healthcare services.
  Rather than restricting family planning clinics, we should be 
promoting, we should be protecting, and we should be preserving access 
to those vital services, especially for those families that value and 
need it most.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter written to 
the Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell signed by 110 Members of the House 
and Senate to express strong opposition to the Department of Health and 
Human Services' September 7, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking titled 
``Compliance with Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in 
Selecting Subrecipients.''

                                Congress of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 2016.
     Hon. Sylvia Mathews Burwell,
     Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Burwell, We write to express our strong 
     opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services 
     (HHS) September 7, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking titled 
     ``Compliance with Title X Requirements by Project Recipients 
     in Selecting Subrecipients.'' Although we appreciate the 
     Department's intent to follow proper regulatory procedure 
     pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, HHS's purpose 
     for engaging in the rulemaking appears on its face to be an 
     attempt to subvert the will of elected representatives.
       Moreover, apart from the Department's impetus for the 
     notice of proposed rulemaking, we also question whether the 
     Department's stated rationale adequately supports its 
     conclusion that providers with a reproductive health focus 
     are more ``effective'' than other health providers that offer 
     comprehensive care for women and men. Nowhere in the proposed 
     notice of rulemaking does HHS clearly define what it means to 
     provide Title X services in an ``effective'' manner. It does 
     appear to assert that a number of factors--such as the range 
     of contraceptive methods on-site, the number of clients in 
     need of publicly funded family planning services served, and 
     the availability of preconception care--distinguish providers 
     with a reproductive health focus as more ``effective'' and 
     ``high quality'' than other types of providers. However, that 
     list of factors falls far short of all of the attributes and 
     recommendations included in the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Office of Population Affairs report entitled ``Providing 
     Quality Family Planning Services: Recommendations of CDC and 
     the US Office of Population Affairs.''
       To further complicate the argument about quality and 
     effectiveness, the data cited in the notice of proposed 
     rulemaking is not adequate for determining patient outcomes. 
     The Department relies heavily on utilization and demographic 
     statistics, but appears to lack hard data regarding actual 
     patient outcomes and need, as the Department does not require 
     grantees to track patients or verify their income. As you 
     know, the issue of inadequate data has previously been raised 
     by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), after the HHS Office of 
     Family Planning in 2007 asked IOM to provide a critical 
     review of the Title X Family Planning Program. In addition to 
     finding ``no clear, evidence-based process for establishing 
     or revising program priorities and guidelines,'' IOM stated 
     the following in its May 2009 Report Brief:
       ``The committee concludes that the program does not collect 
     all the data needed to monitor and evaluate its impact. 
     Therefore, the committee proposes a comprehensive framework 
     to evaluate the program and assess how well clinics meet the 
     family planning needs of the program's clients. The committee 
     concludes that additional data will be needed in the areas of 
     client needs, structure, process, and outcomes in order to 
     assess the program's overall progress.''
       We welcome evidence that this recommendation has been fully 
     adopted, but are unaware of any clear evidence confirming 
     that to be the case. If HHS cannot clearly define an 
     ``effective'' or ``high quality'' provider, it is unclear to 
     us how state and local project grantees are supposed to do so 
     in order to comply with this proposed rule. It is also 
     therefore unclear how HHS will be able to accurately 
     determine in every case whether state or local project 
     recipients--who are generally closer to and more familiar 
     with subrecipients and the patient base in their geographical 
     region--have considered inappropriate criteria in evaluating 
     subrecipients. Rarely do the American people benefit when the 
     federal government attempts to substitute its judgment for 
     that of state or local governments--particularly when the 
     criteria used to inform that judgment are unclear, and that 
     judgment is not supported by coherent and impartial facts.
       Finally, if HHS is going to assert the authority to adapt 
     its rules in order to address changing circumstances, we 
     implore HHS to consider the recent general shift in health 
     care policy toward comprehensive care. As HHS states on its 
     website, in addition to assisting individuals and couples in 
     planning and spacing births, part of the mission of Title X 
     is to contribute to ``improved health for women and 
     infants.'' HHS's suggestion that subrecipients like federally 
     qualified health centers--which provide greater preventive 
     and primary health care services than providers with a 
     reproductive health focus--are per se less ``effective'' than 
     providers with a reproductive health focus does not comport 
     with that stated mission.
       We urge HHS to reconsider this overreaching and ill-
     supported rule. We will continue to closely monitor this 
     proposed rulemaking, and intend to submit this letter as a 
     formal comment. We look forward to a detailed response from 
     your Department.
           Sincerely,
     Joni K. Ernst,
       United States Senator.
     Diane Black,
       United States Congressman.
       Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Bill 
     Cassidy (R-LA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve 
     Daines (R-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), James 
     Inhofe (R-OK), James Lankford (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry 
     Moran (R-KS), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco 
     Rubio (R-FL), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Tim Scott (R-SC), David 
     Vitter (R-LA).
       In addition, Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Rick Allen 
     (R-GA), Brian Babin (R-TX), Lou Barletta (R-PA), Andy Barr 
     (R-KY), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), 
     Charles Boustany, Jr. (R-LA), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Michael 
     Burgess (R-TX), Earl ``Buddy'' Carter (R-GA), Tom Cole (R-
     OK), Chris Collins (R-NY), Doug Collins (R-GA), Mike Conaway 
     (R-TX), Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Jeff 
     Duncan (R-SC), John Duncan, Jr. (R-TN).
       Stephen Fincher (R-TN), Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), John 
     Fleming, (R-LA), Bill Flores (R-TX), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), 
     Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Bob Gibbs (R-OH), 
     Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Trey Gowdy (R-SC), 
     Tom Graves (R-GA), Glenn Grothman (R-WI),

[[Page 2657]]

     Andy Harris (R-MD), Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), Jeb Hensarling (R-
     TX), Jody Hice (R-GA), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Bill Huizenga 
     (R-MI), Randy Hultgren (R-IL), Lynn Jenkins (R-KS).
       Bill Johnson (R-OH), Sam Johnson (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-
     NC), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Trent Kelly (R-MS), Steve King (R-
     IA), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Robert E. 
     Latta (R-OH), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Barry Loudermilk (R-
     GA), Mia Love (R-UT), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Kenny 
     Marchant (R-TX), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Rep. Mark 
     Meadows (R-NC), John Moolenaar (R-MI), Markwayne Mullin (R-
     OK), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Pete Olson (R-TX).
       Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Gary Palmer (AL), Steve Pearce (R-
     NM), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Robert Pittenger (R-NC), Joe 
     Pitts (R-PA), Ted Poe (R-TX), Bill Posey (R-FL), Tom Price 
     (R-GA), John Ratcliffe (R-TX), Martha Roby (R-AL), Phil Roe 
     (R-TN), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Peter Roskam (R-IL), Keith 
     Rothfus (R-PA), David Rouzer (R-NC), Steve Scalise (R-LA), 
     Austin Scott (R-GA).
       James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), Pete Sessions (R-TX), John 
     Shimkus (R-IL), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Ann 
     Wagner (R-MO), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Randy Weber (R-TX), Brad 
     Wenstrup (R-OH), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Kevin Yoder (R-KS), and 
     Ted Yoho (R-FL).

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned by reports from our intelligence 
community regarding the foreign interference in our most recent 
election. The fears have only been compounded by the troubling 
revelations published in The New York Times last night that members of 
the Trump campaign had been in frequent contact with Russian 
intelligence officials during that campaign.
  Mr. Speaker, the future of our democracy is at stake. We are seeing 
the same kinds of things that have happened all over Europe, as 
governments have been changing away from democracies. It is at stake 
here, and it is time this Republican-controlled Congress does its job 
and gets to the bottom of this.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell's and 
Representative Cummings' bill which would create a bipartisan 
commission to investigate foreign interference in our 2016 election.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the privilege of meeting 
hundreds of constituents who traveled from Rochester, New York, to 
Washington, D.C., for the Women's March on Washington. Some of them 
came with three generations, and it was most impressive, but it is 
troubling to me that we are fighting many of the same battles that were 
fought and won generations ago.
  The unprecedented marches and rallies that have been happening are 
necessary because of efforts like this to continually chip away at 
women's healthcare rights. The sad reality is that politicians have 
always worked to put up new roadblocks between women and their health 
care. It has always been my personal belief that when faced with a 
decision that needs to be made about a pregnancy, a woman should 
consult whomever she chooses--certainly her husband, her spiritual 
adviser, her medical adviser, but no one wants to wait in the room 
until a Congressperson gets there to make the final decision. We are 
going way beyond our depth to try to make that decision for persons. 
The government should not be in the business of doing that. The 
majority has made attacking women's constitutional rights the first 
order of business this year, working alongside our new President, and 
it is shameful.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the other measure before us today would repeal 
the Alaska predator rule which protects the interests of all Americans 
in national wildlife refuges while banning some of the most inhumane 
tactics for killing, like killing black bears from an airplane and 
killing coyote pups in their dens. We should be listening to scientists 
who study and understand these species, not an ideological minority 
that sees every animal with teeth as a threat to civilization and a 
potential addition to their trophy hunting collection.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, in a time when so many Americans are looking 
for ideas and policies we can unite around, one point of agreement 
stands out. There is strong consensus among Americans that they do not 
want their taxpayer dollars being used to fund abortions. A Marist poll 
released in January revealed that 61 percent of Americans feel this 
way.
  States have always had the freedom to direct funds away from abortion 
providers, such as the Nation's largest abortion provider, Planned 
Parenthood, and there are many reasons States may wish to do so. The 
most important reason, one that we should all carefully consider, is 
that abortion is not health care. Abortion takes the lives of unborn 
children and hurts women. Many States have recognized this tragic 
reality and, as a result, have chosen to award funds to health clinics 
and organizations that do not provide abortions.
  But in December, the Obama administration issued a regulation that 
forces many States to drastically alter their previous course of 
action. The regulation requires States to include abortion providers as 
recipients of title X grant distributions. Not only does this 
regulation ignore the American people's wish that their tax dollars be 
directed away from abortion providers, it also denies States the 
flexibility to choose to allocate title X funds in a way that meets the 
needs of their citizens.
  H.J. Res. 43 disapproves of this unacceptable regulation, allowing 
States to return to the status quo under which they were operating 
prior to the rule's issuance. If States wish to disburse title X funds 
away from abortion providers, that wish should be respected. For these 
reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and H.J. 
Res. 43.
  Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two 
critical Congressional Review Act resolutions to repeal burdensome 
Federal regulations dropped on the doorstep of the American people in 
the waning hours of the Obama administration. The rules the House will 
be voting to repeal today would infringe upon states' rights to govern 
themselves within their own borders and would impose new Federal 
requirements and oversight in contravention of the 10th Amendment. This 
is why removing these regulations is critical. It is critical to 
maintaining the proper State-Federal balance that our Founding Fathers 
so carefully crafted in our Constitution.
  I thank Representative Diane Black and Representative Don Young for 
their work on these pieces of legislation to protect states' rights. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the two 
underlying resolutions.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 123 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     356) to establish the National Commission on Foreign 
     Interference in the 2016 Election. 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 Foreign Affairs. 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

[[Page 2658]]

     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 356.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time of any electronic vote on the 
question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 190, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 93]

                               YEAS--233

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

                               NAYS--190

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

[[Page 2659]]


     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Carter (GA)
     Cummings
     Davis, Rodney
     Mulvaney
     Payne
     Poe (TX)
     Soto
     Zinke

                              {time}  1318

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 
No. 93.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 93.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of New York). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 188, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 94]

                               YEAS--233

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

                               NAYS--188

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Blumenauer
     Carter (GA)
     Cummings
     Lynch
     Mulvaney
     Payne
     Poe (TX)
     Roskam
     Titus
     Zinke


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1325

  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.

                          ____________________