[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3646-3654]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1301, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 174 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 174

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1301) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may 
     insert in the Congressional Record not later than Wednesday, 
     March 8, 2017, such material as he may deem explanatory of 
     H.R. 1301.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hill). The gentlewoman from Wyoming is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman 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

  Ms. CHENEY. 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 
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 174, 
which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 1301, the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal 2017. I would like 
to thank, in particular, Chairman Frelinghuysen, Chairman Granger, and 
Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard and dedicated work on this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we have no higher obligation as elected representatives 
of the people of this great Republic than ensuring for the security and 
defense of our Nation. We are gathered here at a tremendous time of 
action and achievement across an array of crucial policy areas, 
regulatory relief for the citizens and businesses of our Nation, 
restoration of authority to our States and local communities, tax 
reform, ObamaCare repeal and replacement, and the list goes on.
  President Trump is doing what he promised during his campaign, and it 
is an honor to serve the people of Wyoming at this historic moment. 
But, Mr. Speaker, it is no exaggeration to say that if we fail to 
provide the resources our military needs to defend our Nation, if we 
fail to do what is necessary to ensure America's Armed Forces remain 
superior to all others in the world, if we fail to provide the support 
our men and women in uniform need to recover from 8 years of 
devastating policies, nothing else we are doing in this body will 
matter.
  Mr. Speaker, the need is urgent. As we meet today to debate the 2017 
Defense appropriation, our Nation faces a more complex and grave threat 
environment than we have faced at anytime since World War II, and 
possibly, Mr. Speaker, more than at anytime in our history. For 8 
years, our adversaries' strength has grown, while our relative 
capabilities have stagnated and, in some instances, declined.

                              {time}  1230

  North Korea continues its ballistic missile launches as it threatens 
our allies and interests.
  The Iranian nuclear agreement has bought time for Iran to continue to 
advance its nuclear weapons program, as it reaps the windfall of at 
least $1 trillion of U.S. taxpayer funds provided to it by the Obama 
administration. Iran continues to threaten U.S. naval vessels in the 
Strait of Hormuz, support terrorism across the Middle East, and test 
ballistic missiles despite its U.N. obligations.
  China is rapidly building up its military, and it is targeting, in 
particular, technologies to try to level the playing field with our 
capabilities. It continues to threaten freedom of navigation and trade 
in the South China Sea, and to conduct cyber operations against the 
United States.
  Russia has invaded Ukraine, threatens Eastern Europe and the Baltics, 
is violating INF Treaty obligations, and openly threatening the use of 
nuclear weapons.
  Al-Qaida today exists in more counties than ever before, and ISIS 
continues to recruit and hold territory as it plans and launches 
attacks against the West.
  Most of the actors I just mentioned are also responsible for cyber 
attacks against the United States.
  Against this backdrop, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. military is vastly 
under-resourced. At a recent House Armed Services Committee hearing, 
the vice chief of staff of the Army told members that of the 58 brigade 
combat teams, only three are ready to ``fight tonight.'' The vice chief 
of naval operations, Admiral William Moran, recently testified that 
more than half of all Navy aircraft are grounded due to maintenance 
issues and an inability to

[[Page 3647]]

acquire the necessary parts. Our nuclear force is aging, even as our 
adversaries continue to make advancements in their own nuclear forces 
and capabilities. Our Air Force is the oldest, smallest, and least 
ready it has ever been.
  These stories and shortfalls, Mr. Speaker, exist across nearly every 
aspect of our military. America's fighting men and women are the 
greatest fighting force and the greatest force for good our world has 
ever known. They deserve the resources to do their job.
  We have prevailed over great challenges in the past, from our 
unlikely and miraculous founding, through our Civil War, two world 
wars, the Cold War, and the early years of the war on terror. We must, 
Mr. Speaker, marshal our forces to do so again. To prevail, Congress--
this Congress--must do its job.
  That job begins with passing this 2017 Defense Appropriations bill. 
Then, Mr. Speaker, we must repeal the Budget Control Act and end 
sequestration. There is a rational and responsible way for us to 
undertake defense budgeting. The process in place today is neither.
  The last time our military was able to assess the threats we face and 
then recommend the necessary funding levels to defeat those threats was 
fiscal year 2011, over 6 years ago. We must return to this standard 
budgeting process. In describing the effects of sequestration several 
years ago, our current Defense Secretary put it this way: ``No foe in 
the field can wreak such havoc on our security as mindless 
sequestration is achieving today.'' We must end this practice with all 
speed.
  This should not be a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. It has not been in 
our past. Since World War II, every American President, Republican and 
Democrat alike, has understood the importance of American military 
superiority of ensuring a world in which America and our allies set the 
rules.
  Threatened by the Nazis and the Japanese, Franklin Roosevelt and 
George C. Marshall knew America had to be the ``arsenal of democracy.'' 
At the beginning of the Cold War, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and 
John F. Kennedy roused the Nation to defeat freedom and liberty against 
communism. John F. Kennedy knew America had to be ``the watchmen on the 
walls of freedom.'' In the 1980s, President Reagan oversaw the defense 
buildup we are still benefiting from today. He knew that ``war comes 
not when the forces of freedom are strong, it is when they are weak 
that tyrants are tempted.'' And in the aftermath of 9/11, it was George 
Bush and Dick Cheney who kept us safe, who knew we could not win this 
war on defense, who understood we had to have a military strong and 
capable enough to deny terrorists the safe havens from which they plot 
and plan and launch attacks against our fellow citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, now it is our turn. Across the globe, our adversaries 
challenge us, from China to North Korea, to Iran, to Russia; across the 
Middle East, in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Thirty-four years ago, 
Ronald Reagan described our duty at another time, against another 
enemy, this way:

       It is up to us in our time to choose, and choose wisely, 
     between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace and 
     freedom, and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly 
     hope for the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger 
     day by day.

  Mr. Speaker, we can no longer ignore our duty while our enemies grow 
stronger. We must take the first step today to begin rebuilding our 
military. H.R. 1301 is that first step. It increases defense spending, 
provides a full pay raise for our servicemen and -women, and begins to 
address our readiness shortfalls. This bill provides funds based on our 
military's priorities for fiscal year 2017 and gets us off the cycle of 
continuing resolutions, which are doing real damage to our readiness 
and capacity.
  Therefore, I urge support for the rule to allow for consideration of 
H.R. 1301, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for 
the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to Defense 
Subcommittee Chairmen Granger and Frelinghuysen, and Ranking Member 
Visclosky, for their hard work in bringing this bill to the House floor 
today. The Defense Subcommittee is known for its ability to work in a 
bipartisan manner, and this bill demonstrates that this tradition 
continues.
  Last year, the House approved its version of the FY 2017 Defense 
Appropriations bill. It was a deeply flawed bill filled with funding 
gimmicks, including a funding cliff that cut off funding for the war 
budget in order to boost base defense spending by $18 billion. The 
Senate version of the Defense Appropriations bill did not contain such 
gimmicks and was marked up by the Senate Defense Subcommittee, the full 
committee, and reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, but 
it never went to the Senate floor for consideration.
  The FY 2017 Defense Appropriations bill that the House will consider 
later today is not, therefore, a conference report. It is being treated 
as if it were a conference report, namely by having a closed rule, but 
let us be perfectly clear that this is not a conference report.
  Let me also be clear, Mr. Speaker, that we could have had this type 
of final bill come before us last December, just as we could have 
brought up all of the pending FY 2017 appropriations bills before the 
House last December for final action. Instead, Republican leadership 
chose to keep nearly the entire Federal Government, including the 
Pentagon, operating at FY 2016 levels without any clarity about what 
their annual budgets might be.
  So when we hear talk about problems with military readiness or 
shortfalls in defense budgets, I suggest the Republican leadership hold 
a mirror up to their faces and take some responsibility.
  This bill is 5 months late. It could also have been taken care of 3 
months ago in December, and, in fact, it should have been taken care of 
in December. It is now making its way through another convoluted 
process today. But we still have no idea about the fate of the other 
pending ten appropriations bills that the Republican leadership failed 
to complete last December.
  And I say convoluted, Mr. Speaker, because when the House votes on 
H.R. 1301 today, it still needs to go back to the Senate, and we really 
have no idea what they are going to do with it. Are they going to pass 
it without any changes and send it to the President for signature? Or 
are they going to use it as a vehicle to attach the other ten 
appropriations bills and send it back to us as the FY 2017 omnibus that 
we should have completed in December? Perhaps they might consider 
holding on to it until the President gets around to sending Congress 
his request for the FY 2017 supplemental so that we finally know how 
much Congress is actually being asked to approve for Pentagon spending 
in FY 2017?
  So hold on to your hats because we are not done today with the 
defense spending bills for fiscal year 2017, one way or the other.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that everyone in this House wants to make sure 
that our men and women in uniform are well staffed, trained, and 
equipped to carry out the missions and duties that we have asked them 
to carry out. In these areas, in particular, there is much to recommend 
in this latest version of the FY 2017 defense bill. The same is true 
for the funding included in H.R. 1301 for suicide prevention, sexual 
assault, and medical research.
  I would also like to point out that H.R. 1301 totals $577.9 billion. 
This includes $516.1 billion in the base bill and $61.8 billion in the 
overseas contingency operations account to fund the many wars in which 
we are engaged. Coupled with the $5.8 billion FY 2017 supplemental 
Congress approved last year, total defense spending for FY 2017 
currently stands at $583.7 billion; and that is before we receive still 
another FY 2017 supplemental from the President.
  Mr. Speaker, that is well over half a trillion dollars for the 
Pentagon, more than the combined total military spending of the next 
seven greatest military powers in the world. So for those who bemoan 
how underfunded

[[Page 3648]]

the Pentagon is, I would argue it is more a matter of failing to set 
priorities and tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars of waste, 
fraud, and abuse. Every report on every attempted audit of the Defense 
Department reveals that the Pentagon doesn't have a clue about where 
the money goes. Billions and billions of dollars cannot be accounted 
for. No other agency in the U.S. Government gets so much money or is 
allowed such sloppy accounting, yet the White House and the Congress 
can't wait to throw even more billions at the Pentagon, rather than 
demanding accountability and setting clear spending priorities.
  There are also other matters of concern with this bill, Mr. Speaker. 
H.R. 1301 not only continues, but adds to the prohibitions regarding 
the detention facility at Guantanamo. This is all an effort to prevent 
Guantanamo from shutting down, which hurts America's ability to do 
human rights work around the world and remains a stain on our own 
values and ideals.
  This bill continues to spend billions of dollars on the insane 
trillion-dollar effort to modernize and produce new generations of 
nuclear weapons when what we should be doing is continuing to reduce 
our nuclear arsenal and enter hard negotiations with other nations that 
have nuclear weapons to eliminate them altogether.
  Finally, H.R. 1301 continues to provide so-called emergency funding 
through the OCO account to continue wars in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and 
elsewhere. These wars are hardly unexpected or an emergency and should, 
therefore, be fully incorporated into the base budget for the Pentagon. 
They are also wars for which Congress has not debated or approved any 
authorization for the use of military force.
  We do not have an AUMF to deploy our military forces against the 
Islamic State, yet we have deployed military forces in the air, at sea, 
and on the ground in Iraq, in Syria, and elsewhere in the region.
  We do not have an AUMF to deploy our military forces in the civil war 
in Yemen, yet we have deployed them to Yemen where one of our Navy 
SEALs was killed in combat and several others wounded in January.
  The Republican leadership continues to fail at its constitutional 
responsibilities by not bringing any AUMF before the House for 
consideration, despite promises to do so. So here we are in the 115th 
Congress, following in the failed footsteps of the 113th and 114th 
Congresses, getting ready to vote on tens of billions of dollars for 
wars that Congress has failed to authorize.
  I am proud of the courage demonstrated every single day by our men 
and women in uniform. I wish I could say the same thing about Congress 
and this House.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, while I am glad that at least one of the 
pending appropriations bills is going to see some action today, I 
wonder about the fate of the other ten.
  When will we see those bills, Mr. Speaker?
  In fact, speaking of urgent pending matters, when will we see a jobs 
bill?

                              {time}  1245

  When are we going to see legislation to repair and modernize 
America's infrastructure? Will extra funds be included in the fiscal 
year 2017 Transportation--HUD Appropriations bill, in the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill, in the Interior Appropriations bill for 
similar improvements on Federal lands?
  We have all read about the replacement proposed by the Republican 
leadership for the Affordable Care Act, and correct me if I'm wrong, 
Mr. Speaker, but I am having trouble remembering how many hearings were 
held on that proposal so that Congress could benefit from experts in 
the healthcare field about whether this replacement bill will provide 
health care to even more Americans at less cost than the ACA. Oh, that 
is right, Mr. Speaker. The proposal is being marked up today without 
any hearings or expert testimony whatsoever.
  Especially for the new Members of this body, it is important to 
remember that, when the Democrats drafted the Affordable Care Act, 
there were dozens of hearings and 30 days prenotification before Energy 
and Commerce held its markup, a markup that continued over many days. 
And then the bill, as reported out of committee, was posted for over 2 
months online before coming before the full House for debate on 
amendments and final passage.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if a replacement bill to the ACA is not 
able to make sure that more Americans have health insurance at a lower 
cost, then what is the point other than politics?
  We don't need to see any bill that covers fewer people and forces 
workers, families, and individuals to pay even more for their 
healthcare coverage and get even less in terms of healthcare 
protections. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Republican replacement bill is 
being marked up in committee without a score by the Congressional 
Budget Office; and without a CBO score, then no one in this Chamber, in 
this city, in this Nation has any idea, has any clue how much this 
replacement bill will cost the taxpayer, let alone who will benefit and 
who will suffer under its provisions.
  That is simply a scandal, Mr. Speaker, completely unacceptable. It is 
a cruel joke on American families, American workers, and the States, 
local communities, hospitals, doctors, nurses, and healthcare providers 
who will have to struggle with the consequences of people losing their 
health insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, let's see America's priorities taken care of: a jobs 
bill, an infrastructure bill. Let's make sure we don't weaken 
healthcare protections for people in this country, and let's see all of 
the FY 2017 appropriations bills come before the House in the next few 
days so that we can complete the work that should have been done last 
December.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the vice chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding, 
and, frankly, I want to thank her for taking on this rule and the role 
she plays in this House. She came to Congress with an extraordinary 
expertise in national security, probably unsurpassed by any new Member. 
So she is not only a valuable member of the Rules Committee, she is an 
important voice for the security of the United States of America in a 
very dangerous era.
  Before I begin, I want to actually agree with my friend from 
Massachusetts on a couple of very important points that he made. First, 
I want to agree with him that this should have been done earlier. My 
friend is exactly right about this. This could have been done, in my 
view, in November and December. We should have gotten it done then. We 
would have avoided a lot of problems that come with a continuing 
resolution.
  I am very pleased that we are moving it now, but earlier would have 
been better, no question about it. And that is true with every other 
bill, and my friend made that point as well. We really should make sure 
that each of the appropriations bills are passed. All of the problems 
associated with the continuing resolution are so evident for our 
military, are evident, frankly, in every other department. So I would 
hope my leadership continues to do what they are doing today and that 
is move these bills forward.
  My friend is also right, in my opinion, about the authorization of 
the use of military force. This is something we have agreed on, even 
when we disagree on other things. This is a congressional 
responsibility. The President has announced he is going to announce a 
new strategy going forward on ISIS. I would suggest to my side of the 
aisle and to the administration, now would be a great time to come to 
the Congress so we could have this robust debate on deploying and using 
our military and discharge our constitutional responsibilities.
  I am less persuaded by my friend's arguments about the spending 
levels here. I just point out for the record this is well below what 
former Secretary of Defense Gates, when he was

[[Page 3649]]

Secretary in the Obama administration, recommended we should be doing 
at this time. Frankly, that is because the last administration dropped 
the ball and simply didn't listen to its own experts as to what the 
appropriate level of our forces should be.
  The underlying legislation here is an excellent bill. My friends have 
already talked about it in detail. I am going to take a 30,000-foot 
look at the bill and remind our listeners and our colleagues, there are 
three important objectives that this bill achieves:
  The first is stopping the erosion in end strength, something that 
went on for years under the last administration that somehow thought we 
would be safer if our military got smaller. That was a bad assumption.
  The second is to restart the procurement cycle. We have fallen far, 
far behind what we should be doing in terms of replacing, upgrading, 
and improving the weapons systems and the communication systems, every 
system that we move into war with and that we ask our men and women to 
use.
  And finally, this actually begins to address a problem that my friend 
from Wyoming discussed in great detail: readiness. We simply are not 
ready now to fight with the effectiveness. Now, I don't have any doubt, 
if we had to deploy massively, that our forces would do well and they 
would win, but a lot of people would die because they hadn't had the 
appropriate training, the appropriate time on task to get ready.
  The other great objective that this bill meets is that we finally 
match up spending with the authorization. Last year, we had an 
excellent authorization bill out of the House Armed Services Committee. 
Unfortunately, that doesn't get you very far if the money doesn't match 
the policies and the recommendations that they advanced. This now takes 
care of that problem.
  I also remind our colleagues that passing this bill is only a first 
step. As my friend from Wyoming pointed out, we are going to need a 
supplemental later this year, just for this year. We are going to need 
a robust increase in the fiscal year 2018 authorization and 
appropriation, something that the President has committed to and 
something I hope we can advance on a bipartisan basis.
  Finally, again, as my friend pointed out, real military buildups take 
years, not months and weeks. We are going to have to be at this task 
for several years to restore and strengthen, frankly, what we allowed 
to decline, what the last administration allowed to decline over 
several years.
  So this is an extraordinary first step, but it is only a first step; 
and I would hope my colleagues would join us on a bipartisan basis, 
while we have differences, but come together and put the defense of the 
country in a very dangerous time ahead of all else that we do.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the bill and the underlying 
legislation, and I urge the passage of the rule.
  Again, I want to thank my friend from Wyoming. I want to thank my 
friend from Massachusetts. We sometimes disagree, but he makes very 
valuable and very important points in some of the critiques he offers, 
and I hope that we heed them well.
  With that, again, Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of the underlying 
legislation and the adoption of the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his kind words and 
for understanding that it is inappropriate for Congress to continue 
these wars without having a vote on an AUMF. I hope that that changes, 
but I appreciate his support, and there is bipartisan support for 
having this body actually do its job. That shouldn't be a radical idea, 
but, unfortunately, nowadays, doing our job seems to be something that 
a lot of people don't want to do.
  Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of the year, the Republican 
majority adopted a rule to explicitly exempt the cost of any bill that 
repeals or amends the Affordable Care Act from a requirement that it 
not increase spending by $5 billion. They effectively adopted a 
legislative blindfold to completely ignore the cost of repeal.
  Let me show you the poster of the language, and I am happy to provide 
this to my colleagues on the Republican side. I will even give you my 
bifocals if you want to read it, because I think it is important that 
people understand what it says. It says:

       Point of order: It shall not be in order to consider any 
     bill that would cause a net increase in direct spending in 
     excess of $5 billion.
       Limitation: This subsection shall not apply to any bill 
     repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

  Mr. Speaker, as you can see, with this act, the majority declared 
that they were not going to let the rules of this House, which are 
purportedly in place to ensure fiscal discipline, stand in the way of 
repealing the Affordable Care Act no matter how much it would cost 
American families.
  But, Mr. Speaker, it gets even worse. As we stand here today, 
Republicans have taken their head-in-the-sand approach to the 
Affordable Care Act to a new low. Right now, both the Energy and 
Commerce and Ways and Means Committees are considering Republican 
legislation to repeal healthcare reform without providing any analysis 
from the nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office on the 
cost of their legislation.
  So let me put this another way. Earlier this year, the Republicans 
said: It does not matter how much it will cost to take health care away 
from millions of Americans. Now they are saying they don't even want to 
know how much it will cost or what impact it will have on American 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, we have over 200 employees at the Congressional Budget 
Office. That office costs nearly $50 million a year. We pay them to 
advise us precisely at times like this. Republicans have talked about 
repeal and replace for 7 years. Acting like they had not enough time to 
weigh the cost of their actions would be laughable if it were not so 
irresponsible.
  Now, we Democrats care about health care and we care about costs and 
we demand to know what the impact of this repeal bill will be. Members 
should not be asked to vote on this legislation until they know the 
full weight of their decision.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule that would require a CBO cost estimate to be made 
publicly available before any legislation that amends or repeals the 
Affordable Care Act may be considered in the Energy and Commerce or 
Ways and Means Committee or on the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of that 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), who has been a leader on this 
issue, and he will explain this even further.
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding time.
  The issue before us is far more basic than one's view on the 
Affordable Care Act. I recognize that there is a philosophical 
difference about the Affordable Care Act: on our side of the aisle, we 
think it is good legislation; on the opposite side of the aisle, they 
have concerns. But the issue is whether the American people, whether 
taxpayers, ought to know the cost of the repeal legislation, whether 
they have the right to know how much a legislation introduced in this 
House costs.
  Now, here is the irony: the Speaker of the House, the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin, made his entire career demanding that we know 
numbers behind legislation. That was his mantra in his time of service 
in the House.
  You talk to Doug Elmendorf, who was the former Congressional Budget 
Office Director, and he said that the one thing he respected about the 
Speaker is that he would actually insist on the numbers, that he would 
want to know how much we are adding

[[Page 3650]]

to a $20 trillion deficit. That is why it is incomprehensible to me 
that, in this Congress, under this Speaker, we would ever be asked to 
vote on legislation without knowing the financial impact of that 
legislation.
  These are basic issues:
  How much is the repeal legislation going to add to our deficit?
  How much is it going to finance tax cuts for the wealthy?
  How many people will it leave out of insurance or how many people 
would it add to insurance?
  There just ought to be a transparent discussion.
  Now, it is not just Democrats who want this transparent discussion; 
actually, a Republican, the gentleman from Ohio, a founder of the 
Freedom Caucus, has expressed similar concerns. He has expressed 
concerns that this repeal legislation will balloon the deficit and 
explode the deficit, and he wants to know the numbers.
  We can have as much respectful disagreement about how to cover people 
and whether the Affordable Care Act is a good piece of legislation or 
not, but what we should not be debating is the public's right to 
transparency. That is why I urge my colleagues to reject the previous 
question so that we can hold an immediate vote on requiring the 
Congressional Budget Office to score the repeal legislation and provide 
the American people with the basic financial costs of the legislation.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What is incomprehensible to me is that our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle seem so fundamentally confused about what the actual 
issue before us today is. The issue before us today is whether or not 
this House is going to undertake its fundamental, most important, most 
sacred obligation under our Constitution and provide for the defense of 
this Nation.
  Now, they can choose to dedicate their time to another very important 
topic. It is a hugely important topic and one that we will have many 
days to debate and discuss on this floor. Unlike under the previous 
leadership, Speaker Pelosi, our leadership, Speaker Ryan, has not told 
us we have to pass the bill before we know what is in it.
  Today, the issue before us in this House is whether or not we are 
going to provide for the defense of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Gaetz).
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful that our colleagues across 
the aisle have become so interested in the impact of the national debt 
on the American people. I only wish that, during their time in control 
of the White House, we had not doubled the national debt.
  I am similarly grateful that Members on the other side of the aisle 
would say that we should know the impact of legislation before we vote 
for it because, after all, it was former Speaker Pelosi who said: Let's 
vote for it so that we know what is in the Affordable Care Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today because following an 8-year cycle of 
abandonment, it is time we do right by our military members and their 
families. I rise in support of the brave warriors stationed at Eglin 
Air Force Base, Naval Air Station Pensacola, and all across the globe. 
The 2.1 percent pay raise we provide in this appropriation is a modest 
downpayment on what is owed to those who put themselves in harm's way 
for our freedom.
  Our current state of military readiness is not acceptable. Half of 
the planes in our Navy cannot fly. Pilots are leaving. Marines are 
harvesting parts out of museums. Soldiers downrange don't have the 
unrivaled equipment they need to match their unrivaled patriotism.
  This $583 billion appropriation is a first step. It means 74 new F-35 
aircraft. The F-35 is the most capable aircraft in the sky. Pilots have 
greater survivability in the F-35. This matters so much to me. In my 
district, we are training the next generation of F-35 pilots to fight 
and win against any enemy we encounter in the skies.
  This legislation also reflects our values by investing in cancer 
research and traumatic brain injury research.
  Now, some say we cannot focus on defense; we should focus on other 
domestic priorities. I would simply say our adversaries are not 
waiting. Our warfighters and military families are tired of waiting and 
so am I.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciated the gentleman from Florida's comments, but I would just 
ask him: Why is the Republican leadership 5 months late in bringing a 
defense appropriations bill to the floor?
  We could have done this months ago. So if there was this urgency, it 
seems to escape the Republican leadership.
  I want to take issue with the gentlewoman from Wyoming when she says 
that what is important today and what we are debating today is only 
this Defense Appropriations bill.
  As you know, we are currently debating the rule, and the rule is a 
tool used to set the House agenda and to prioritize consideration of 
legislation. For that very reason, this is, in fact, the appropriate 
time for us to explain to the American people what legislation we would 
like to prioritize, what is of grave concern to us, and what agenda we 
would like to pursue in this House.
  The fact of the matter is that, as we are speaking, the House Ways 
and Means Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee are marking 
up TrumpCare, which we know, in all likelihood, is going to result in 
millions of Americans losing their health insurance. We also are 
concerned that it is going to cost the American taxpayer a boatload of 
money.
  What we are simply saying here today is that the Congressional Budget 
Office, which we fund and we rely on, ought to be able to give us a 
cost estimate, ought to tell us how much this is going to add to our 
deficit, how much it is going to cost the American people, how many 
people are going to lose their health care.
  Why in the world would you rush a major piece of legislation through 
committee and onto the floor without even knowing what you are talking 
about?
  I mean, this process constitutes mindless legislating. This is not 
doing your job, and that is all we are requesting.
  We can argue over whether or not you like the Affordable Care Act or 
you don't. But whatever you are going to do, we ought to bring it to 
the floor with everybody's eyes wide open and knowing what the impacts 
are going to be.
  Talk about lack of transparency, this TrumpCare bill was under lock 
and key until just a couple of days ago. It was the best-kept secret in 
the world. For 7 years, my friends have been talking about a 
replacement bill. No one ever saw it. But all of a sudden, it is 
brought out before the American people at a press conference and, 
again, in a way that doesn't answer a lot of questions. It is being 
rushed through committee, and it is going to be rushed onto the House 
floor. That is not a good process.
  I will remind my colleagues that when the Affordable Care Act was 
considered here in the House, the House held 79 bipartisan hearings and 
markups on the health insurance reform in 2009 and 2010. You have held 
no hearings. None. There has been no expert testimony, no healthcare 
professionals, no doctors, no patients, no nurses, no families, 
nothing. There have been no hearings. The bill went right to markup.
  House Members spent nearly 100 hours in hearings, heard from 181 
witnesses from both sides of the aisle, considered 239 amendments, both 
Democratic and Republican, accepted 21 amendments. Again, there have 
been no hearings.
  In markup, the Energy and Commerce Committee adopted 24 GOP 
amendments. In markup, the Education and the Workforce Committee 
adopted six GOP amendments. The original House bill was posted online 
for 30 days before the first committee began their markup and more than 
100 days before the tricommittees formally introduced their merged bill 
in the House.

[[Page 3651]]

  House Democrats posted their first House bill online for the promised 
72-hour review. The Senate bill voted on in the House was online for 3 
months, and the reconciliation bill was online for 72 hours of review 
before the final vote.
  House Democrats heard and answered questions from constituents at 
more than 3,000 healthcare townhalls and public events. Tens of 
thousands of emails, calls, and letters were logged in congressional 
offices to register public comment. My friends are busy trying to avoid 
public town meetings.
  I am just simply saying that we are raising this issue because we are 
deeply concerned about the prospect of millions of Americans losing 
health care and about you adding God knows what to our deficit. I don't 
think it is too much to come together in a bipartisan way to say: Let 
us know what the costs are going to be, let us know what the impacts 
are going to be. And if you still want to vote for TrumpCare, you can 
vote for it, but you ought to know what you are voting for.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say that not knowing what they are talking about is something 
with which our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are quite 
familiar. Accounts of public input really bear little relationship to 
what actually happened when ObamaCare itself was drafted in the dark of 
night.
  Imagine what it must be like if you are tuning in to this 
conversation and this discussion thinking that the U.S. House of 
Representatives is taking up the rule to debate, discuss, and pass our 
FY17 Defense Appropriations. Instead, what we are hearing is a list of 
when bills were posted online--a list--which, as I said, bears little 
reality to what actually happened when ObamaCare was passed.
  Now, those are hugely important issues. I am incredibly proud of the 
job we are doing as Republicans in this body to help save a collapsing 
healthcare system.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there is no higher duty and obligation we have 
than to ensure that our military is second to none. No matter what kind 
of a job we do, as important as that is to repeal and replace 
ObamaCare, if we fail to address this fundamental issue and fail to 
provide the resources our military needs, nothing else we do in this 
body matters.
  I believe, frankly, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
owe our men and women in uniform, they owe the policymakers at the 
Pentagon, they owe those people who are serving this Nation the respect 
of talking about the resources they need to do their job and focusing 
on the true issue before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 
1301, which will fund our national defense for fiscal year 2017. This 
bill is a vital first step as we begin to work on rebuilding our 
military. The best way to look at defense spending over time is as a 
percentage of U.S. gross domestic product.
  Since World War II, we have spent an average of 5 percent of our GDP 
on defense during peacetime. Despite a world that has gotten more 
dangerous, the defense drawdown in recent years cut defense spending 
from 5 percent of GDP to 3 percent of GDP. And in a $17 trillion 
economy, that is real money.
  Meanwhile, since Vietnam, we have spent an average of 21 percent of 
the Federal budget on defense. Today, we spend well below that, about 
15 percent of the overall budget.
  Things are so bad today--and I don't have time in 2 minutes to go 
into all the details--that we are actually at risk of losing more 
American lives than we should in the event of another war.
  The next step is to pass a robust defense supplemental and then to 
fund defense for fiscal year 2018 at a minimum level of $640 billion. 
Anything less will not keep Americans safe and will not allow us to 
rebuild our military as we desperately must do.
  Congress must deal with sequestration. Trying to fund defense at BCA 
levels is like trying to put a size 10 foot into a size 7 shoe. It 
simply doesn't work and it is dangerous for our own security and it is 
dangerous for the world.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to say to my colleagues on the other side: I know you don't 
like me talking about health care. If I were you, I wouldn't want to 
talk about health care either. This is a serious matter, and it is a 
matter of security for millions and millions of Americans in our 
country.
  Again, maybe somebody over there can tell me: How much is this new 
TrumpCare bill going to cost? How much is it going to add to the 
deficit? How much are the American taxpayers going to have to pay for 
it? Does anyone know how many people will lose their coverage? Hello?
  I guess I would ask the questions: Why do we have over 200 employees 
at the Congressional Budget Office, who we pay $50 million a year to be 
able to give us these estimates, if we are not going to utilize them? 
Why are we doing this?
  It seems to me that before we do something that could harm millions 
of people in this country, before we could do something that could 
result in an increase in our deficit, why don't we ask the experts? And 
we all acknowledge that they are experts and we pay them lots of money. 
Why don't we get their advice?
  This whole process seems backwards. You ought not to be marking up 
bills when you don't know what their impact is going to be.
  Part of our job as Members of Congress, in addition to holding 
hearings and listening to experts and listening to citizens tell us 
their perspective--which, again, has been totally ignored in this 
process of the repeal of the healthcare bill--is also to make sure that 
when we are voting, we know what the impact is going to be, we know 
whether or not it is going to have a positive impact or whether it is 
going to have a negative impact.
  Again, one of the reasons why I want to defeat the previous question 
is so that we can vote in a, hopefully, bipartisan way to get a CBO 
score so we know what is what.
  I get it. I know my colleagues don't want to talk about health care. 
They would rather talk about something we should have done months ago. 
That is what we are doing now, we are doing old work now. This should 
have been done 4 or 5 months ago. I am just baffled why you don't want 
to do your job.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We on this side of the aisle are more than happy to talk about health 
care. We are more than happy to talk about the really crucial work that 
is underway to rescue our healthcare system from the collapse and the 
train wreck of ObamaCare, which my colleague's party put into place in 
the dark of night with no reading of the bill.
  We are thrilled actually that our bill is 120 pages and that it is 
readable and that it is available online right now. So when he leaves 
the floor, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts can go read 
the bill.
  It is also not surprising that our colleagues do not want to talk 
about our national defense because the record of the last 8 years, the 
record of the last President is unparalleled in American history. The 
mess that we are having to clean up with respect to our healthcare 
system is matched perhaps only--and maybe even exceeded--by the damage 
that was done to our military and to our national security under the 
last administration.
  We think, on this side of the aisle, that it is crucially important 
that we do our job when the time is now to debate, discuss, and vote on 
this bill and address this topic.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Taylor).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the 2017 Defense 
Appropriations bill, a bill providing vital

[[Page 3652]]

funding for the United States military and intelligence communities who 
continue to be engaged in responding, engaging, and destroying threats 
around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the honor and the great responsibility of 
representing the largest concentration of Active-Duty military and 
veterans of any congressional district in the Nation. Who are they? 
Fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, soccer coaches, 
neighbors.
  Our district has thousands of the less than 1 percent of the Nation 
that has gone forth over and over to fight for us; the best among us, 
fighting the worst in the world.
  In our district, Mr. Speaker, we have the largest naval base in the 
world, NASA, SEAL teams, Marines, Army soldiers, Air Force Combat 
Command, coastguardsmen, Oceana Naval Master Jet Base, national 
guardsmen, and many, many more.
  Mr. Speaker, we are moving toward the smallest Army since World War 
II, the smallest Air Force ever, Navy ships not being properly 
maintained due to budget, Marine planes not combat-ready. This is 
unacceptable. Our Nation requires a military, but our force is 
voluntary. We owe them more.
  We must take up this 2017 Defense Appropriations bill to help 
maintain a technological advantage. If we must send our men and women 
into harm's way, let us always send these warfighters with an unfair 
advantage.
  This bill provides essential equipment, platforms, and upgrades. We 
must give our force and our industrial base predictability and 
stability, the right equipment, the right training, and the right 
military superiority.
  This bill not only supports the warfighters, but their families as 
well who, Mr. Speaker, are the very backbone of our forces and an 
integral part of the tremendous sacrifice that has taken place for our 
Nation. This bill provides important investments in traumatic brain 
injury, suicide prevention, sexual assault prevention, and much more.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Webster of Florida). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, this bill gives a well-deserved pay raise, 
enhances health care, and eases the burden our Nation demands on 
military families moving forward. I urge all of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to vote in support of this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I surely want to make sure that we support our 
warfighters. My problem with the Defense bill is that we are spending 
so much money on things that I think are questionable. I would rather 
spend money on supporting our troops more than spending $1 trillion 
over the next 3 decades building more nuclear weapons. We have more 
nuclear weapons than any other country in the world, and we ought to be 
talking about limiting nuclear weapons and eliminating them altogether.
  I want to support our men and women who we put in harm's way, but I 
want this Congress, I want Members of this House, to do their job. It 
doesn't take any courage to sit back and have troops deployed all over 
the world, in harm's way, and we don't even take the time to actually 
debate an authorization for the use of military force. We are too 
afraid to talk about those issues.
  So when we talk about supporting our men and women in uniform, people 
ought to do a little bit of reflection on how we have not been doing 
our job.
  Again, I note my friends don't want to talk about health care. My 
colleague actually said she would like to talk about health care more. 
Well, we should, because the fact of the matter is, as I said, as we 
are speaking here, the Republicans have unveiled this bill that has 
been in secret, that nobody has really had a chance to digest. No 
hearings. They want to talk about health care so much--no hearings, no 
expert testimony, no nothing. Right to markup; trying to rush it to the 
floor before we find out the true cost to the American people about 
what this TrumpCare bill is going to be all about; when they find out 
how many of them are going to lose their care; how it is going to cut 
Medicare; how senior citizens are going to see an increase in their 
healthcare costs; how average Americans are going to pay more for 
health care and get less protections; how people who are struggling in 
poverty are going to be out of luck because they are going to do away 
with the Medicaid guarantee to States.
  Health care ought to be a fundamental right in this country, and they 
are taking that right away, and they are doing it in a fashion so that 
CBO, again, 200 employees at the Congressional Budget Office that 
Congress appropriates $50 million a year to support so they can do 
their expert work, they are doing this in a way so we are not even 
asking for their expert advice. What sense does that make?
  This is the rule. This is where we set our priorities about what our 
legislative agenda ought to be; and all I am simply saying is vote 
``no'' on the previous question so we can vote on an amendment so we 
can demand a CBO score in the healthcare bill.
  By the way, that doesn't slow down the Defense Appropriations bill. 
It still goes forward. Nothing stops. So let's do what is right. Let 
there be a little sunshine on this House of Representatives.
  There is a pattern that has developed under the Republican leadership 
where everything is closed. This bill that we are dealing with right 
now, closed rule. It is not a conference report, closed rule.
  We have had more closed rules in the first few months in this 
Congress than any Congress, I think, in history, and that is the 
pattern. No hearings, no discussion, just go right to markup. We don't 
want to know how much it is going to cost. We don't want to know how 
many people are going to be thrown off of health care. Let's just rush 
something through. That is mindless legislating, and it has to stop.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. GALLAGHER).
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, over the last 8 years, the United States 
has experienced a sharp rise in the number of military threats from 
foreign aggressors. Last month, Russia secretly deployed two batteries 
of new nuclear-capable cruise missiles. North Korea test-launched four 
ballistic missiles just this week, and China continues to bolster its 
military presence in the South China Sea, while going toward a naval 
fleet that may surpass 351 ships by 2020.
  Meanwhile, our own Navy is the smallest it has been in 99 years, 
satisfying only 40 percent of the demand from regional commanders. 
Fifty-four percent of the Air Force's major weapons systems now qualify 
for antique vehicle license plates in the State of Virginia.
  The Army, to quote the Vice Chief of Staff, is ``outraged, outgunned, 
and outdated.''
  These are the bitter fruits of defense sequester; defense sequester 
which must be pulled out, root and branch. To quote Secretary Mattis: 
``No foe in the field can wreak such havoc on our security that 
mindless sequestration is achieving.''
  I agree with General Mattis. I agree that defense sequester is 
mindless. It is also dangerous. So today, while I speak in support of 
this rule and this bill, I applaud the Appropriations Committee for its 
critical work, and I urge my colleagues to support final passage.
  This is just the first step. We will not have fulfilled our first and 
foremost constitutional duty to keep the country safe until we have 
completely eliminated defense sequester and truly begun the process of 
restoring peace through strength.
  Einstein's words are as true today as they were in 1931, when he said 
of America: ``The part of passive spectator is unworthy of this country 
and is bound in the end to lead to disaster all around.''
  If we do not act now to rebuild and modernize our military, if we 
continue to play the role of passive spectator, not only will it lead 
to disaster, at

[[Page 3653]]

some point we will no longer be worthy of global leadership.
  So to my colleague, I will say that this is our job. This is our most 
basic job. So let's do what the American people sent us here to do to 
keep the country safe, restore peace through strength. That is doing 
our job.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. McSally).
  Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Wyoming, and I 
appreciate the hard work of Chairman Frelinghuysen and Chairman Granger 
on this very important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the FY17 Department of 
Defense Appropriations bill, and I urge voting and adoption of this 
bill.
  I served 26 years in uniform, and I can say, firsthand, that 
continuing resolutions are bad for our troops. It is urgent that we 
pass this bill. One reason is that we are in a military readiness 
crisis like I have not seen in my lifetime.
  This bill provides over $215 billion for readiness, an increase of 
$5.2 billion above the FY16 enacted budget. This increase includes 
funding for flight time for our pilots, maintenance for our aircraft, 
and base operations, among other things. It also provides more than 
$6.8 billion for procurement of aircraft, ships, and helicopters for 
our troops.
  The bill fully funds the mighty A-10 Warthog, and it has continued 
funding for upgrades for this critical plane, extending its service 
life by starting the re-winging of the remaining 110 aircraft in the 
fleet. It also increases funding to maintain our asymmetric electronic 
warfare advantage, developed and tested at Fort Huachuca, in my 
district.
  Finally, it provides funding for important missile programs, from 
air-to-air missiles to missile defense.
  Our troops are counting on us. Let's stop the bickering, and let's 
pass this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to again urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to vote to defeat the previous question so we can actually 
bring an amendment to the floor to demand CBO tell us how much the 
Republican healthcare bill is going to cost and what its impact is 
going to be on the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell you why I am worried. The AARP estimates 
that the Republican repeal bill could increase premium costs by $8,400 
for a 64-year-old earning $15,000 a year, and it could put at risk the 
health care of millions of vulnerable Americans.
  Now, we have over 200 employees at the Congressional Budget Office. 
That office costs nearly $50 million a year. We pay them to advise us 
precisely at times like this. We ought to rely on their information. We 
ought to ask for their guidance. Before marking up bills, before 
rushing bills to the floor that could adversely impact millions and 
millions of Americans that could break the bank in this country, we 
ought to find out what we are talking about.
  We can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can pass the Defense 
bill and you can also pass an amendment that tells us how much this 
Republican healthcare bill is going to cost. We ought to do both.
  So defeat the previous question so that we can bring this amendment 
to the floor. Let a little sunshine in on this process. Let the 
American people know what is going on here. I think that is the 
appropriate way to proceed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 1301 is the first step we must take in rebuilding our military. 
It is only a first step. We must also repeal the Budget Control Act and 
end sequestration if we are going to truly address our shortfalls. We 
must return to a rational budgeting process at the Pentagon, where 
spending is based upon defending the defeating threats to this Nation, 
not arbitrary and devastating across-the-board cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, nearly 70 years ago, President Harry Truman addressed 
this body about the growing Soviet threat to Eastern Europe. He said: 
``There are times in world history when it is far wiser to act than to 
hesitate. There is some risk in action. There always is. But there is 
far more risk in failure to act.''
  President Truman continued: ``We must be prepared to pay the price 
for peace or, assuredly, we shall pay the price for war.''
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I urge that we begin to pay the price for peace. 
I urge support for the rule and for the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 174 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 2. In rule XXI add the following new clause:
       13. (a) It shall not be in order to consider a bill or 
     joint resolution proposing to repeal or amend the Patient 
     Protection and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and the 
     Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 
     2010 (PL 111-152), or part thereof, in the House, in the 
     Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, or in 
     the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, 
     unless an easily searchable electronic estimate and 
     comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office is made available on a publicly available 
     website of the House.
       (b) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order 
     that waives the application of paragraph (a).
                                  ____


        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.


[[Page 3654]]

  Ms. CHENEY. 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 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________