[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6060-6069]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1694, FANNIE AND FREDDIE OPEN 
RECORDS ACT OF 2017; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND 
 THE RULES; AND WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH 
   RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE 
                           COMMITTEE ON RULES

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 280 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 280

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1694) to require additional entities to be 
     subject to the requirements of section 552 of title 5, United 
     States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of 
     Information Act), and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in 
     this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform now printed in the bill, it 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 115-14 modified by the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill

[[Page 6061]]

     to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
     Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of April 29, 2017, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.
       Sec. 3.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of April 29, 2017.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the 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

  Mr. WOODALL. 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 Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I have a confession to make to you. In 
fact, I have two confessions to make.
  The first is I have got a big group up in the Rules Committee right 
now. It is my Gwinnett County Chamber of Commerce. It is an amazing 
county, tremendous diversity, tremendous record of success in solving 
problems. They have been up there visiting with leaders all day long.
  I first met with them this morning while Mr. McGovern was down here 
on the floor during 5 minutes. I said: Well, this is a 5-minute time. 
You can step right through the doors there, if you would like to see 
it.
  They said: Who is on the floor?
  I said: Well, it is this fellow right here. His name tag is there in 
the Rules Committee. He is down there, #endhunger.
  I said: The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and I can 
disagree on all sorts of issues, all sorts of public policy, but there 
is nobody in this institution who has a heart for service on the issue 
of hunger more than Jim McGovern does.
  I said: Here he is. He is representing Massachusetts, of all places, 
and he has chosen to serve on the Agriculture Committee. If you are a 
Georgian, you serve on the Agriculture Committee because you grow 
cotton and peanuts and row crop after row crop after row crop. When you 
are from Massachusetts and you sit on the Agriculture Committee, you 
want to end childhood hunger, you want to feed people.
  I tell you that as a confession, Mr. Speaker, because I am not going 
to confess to sharing my admiration for Jim McGovern all that often on 
the House floor, but I was with folks up there today who really do 
commit themselves to making a difference in our county. It was nice to 
have a colleague on the floor--again, with whom I disagree about much--
who was putting everything he had, as he does every day, into an issue 
that he cares a lot about.
  That is all my constituents back home want, Mr. Speaker, is to 
believe that we have sincere, earnest folks working on sincere and 
difficult issues. So I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) for that.
  My second confession, Mr. Speaker, is that ordinarily I really enjoy 
listening to the Reading Clerk read the rule. It gets me all wound up 
about how the process is. Of course, today she was talking about all 
the amendments we are going to make in order. We are making every 
single amendment offered by both sides of the aisle in order on this 
underlying bill.
  I found myself thinking back to the days when I was a young man and I 
came up here with my class. I was sitting up here in the gallery, and I 
walked into the floor at a time when the Reading Clerk was just 
standing up there reading. There was no cheat sheet that they give you 
in the gallery, Mr. Speaker. You don't have any idea whether they are 
going to read for 20 seconds or 20 minutes. For all you know, they are 
going to read for the rest of the afternoon, and it was hard to follow.
  I get a cheat sheet here that my staff gives me before each rule. I 
didn't enjoy it as much today as I ordinarily do, Mr. Speaker, because 
there is a lot of procedural work in this rule.
  We are coming up on a bunch of big deadlines. So there is the ability 
to bring up suspensions. These are commonsense bills that two-thirds of 
the House agree on. You can bring those up at any time. That provision 
is made in this rule.
  There is the ability to bring things up the same day. If the Rules 
Committee goes up and passes a new rule, we can bring that bill to the 
floor immediately. Ordinarily that would lay over for 24 hours. But 
because there are so many things we are trying to get done, we waived 
that.
  All of those procedural issues, Mr. Speaker, get in the way of my 
favorite part of the rule, which is that every single Member of this 
body had a chance to come up to the Rules Committee, offer their ideas 
for how we can make this bill better, and the Rules Committee made 
every single one of them in order. Let me tell you more about that.
  This House Resolution 280, Mr. Speaker, is the structured rule for 
the consideration of H.R. 1694. If you happen to tune into our Rules 
Committee web feed, Mr. Speaker, you can see it at rules.house.gov if 
you are not able to get up there with us as we meet sometimes late at 
night.
  This House Resolution 280 is for the consideration of H.R. 1694, the 
Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017. Now, folks know a lot 
about open records, Mr. Speaker. It is that procedure--it is called 
FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act--where any member of the United 
States community board of directors--that would be any United States 
citizen--can write and say: this is my government, and I want some 
information about what is going on. That has been a very fundamental 
part of who we are as a people for as long as you and I have been 
alive.
  What is unusual, though, is the way the Federal Government has gotten 
involved in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the tune of about $187 
billion--billion with a B, Mr. Speaker. The American taxpayer bailed 
out these two private institutions making the American taxpayer, making 
the U.S. Government the largest shareholder in both of these 
institutions.
  So we found ourselves in a unique situation of having the American 
taxpayers in charge of an institution with no ability, through the 
Freedom of Information Act, to request information from that entity. It 
just hadn't come up that often. Thank goodness we haven't had to bail 
out folks that way in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, these entities that Fannie and Freddie are a part--we 
called them government-sponsored enterprises--they just haven't 
historically been the subject of that kind of taxpayer scrutiny, but 
times are changing.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, went through the regular order process. 
Hearings were held. Markups were held. It came out of the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform. If you have not looked into government 
reform, Mr. Speaker, it is not often that the Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform is moving unanimous legislation.
  The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is a tough committee 
to serve on. I served there in my first term here, Mr. Speaker. It is 
the hardest things about our government, how we hold each other 
accountable. Of course, where you stand sometimes depends on where you 
sit here. If you sit on the left or you sit on the right, you

[[Page 6062]]

might feel differently about government reform and accountability.
  This bill passed out of this committee on a voice vote, Mr. Speaker. 
The most collaborative of efforts moved this bill to the floor.
  Then when we got it in the Rules Committee, we had several Members 
say: I think we can make this bill better. I think we can make this 
bill even better.
  These were Members who may not have had a chance to fix those issues 
on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  Again, as I said, we made all amendments in order from both sides of 
the aisle. I believe that totals three today, Mr. Speaker. But the 
take-home message for me is, if you had an idea about how to fix this 
bill, the folks in the Rules Committee made that opportunity available 
to you.
  Mr. Speaker, we can't do the big things every single day of the week. 
Every piece of legislation we pass, unless we stuff everything into it, 
can't do everything for everyone. Candidly, I am opposed to stuffing 
everything into a piece of legislation. I am glad when we have an 
opportunity to move one issue, one subject, one topic at a time and 
deliver on behalf of the American people.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, this structured rule, House Resolution 280, is a good 
bill. It is a good resolution that, if passed, will provide for the 
consideration of the underlying legislation, H.R. 1694, which, if 
passed, will provide the American taxpayer, for the first time, the 
accountability that they deserve for the $187 billion in taxpayer 
support that Fannie and Freddie have received. I am proud to be 
associated with that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my friend, for 
the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I first want to begin by thanking the gentleman for his 
kind words to his constituents about me on the floor. It means a lot to 
me, and I appreciate it.
  I should tell him, however, that, even though sometimes people don't 
realize this, Massachusetts has a robust agricultural base, and, in 
fact, in my district, I have 1,832 farms on over 142,899 acres, 
compared to the gentleman who has 209 farms on 13,328 acres. So, in 
addition to fighting hunger, I am on the Agriculture Committee to 
represent my farms.
  I do genuinely appreciate the gentleman's kind words, but then I look 
at the rule that we are debating today and it kind of spoils the mood.
  Having said that, I just want to say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, 
that here we are again, just 1 day from our government running out of 
funding and confronting yet another manufactured, totally avoidable 
crisis, and instead of working on a bill to fully fund America's 
biggest priorities, we are back on the floor with--the only way I can 
characterize this--more filler legislation. It seems my Republican 
friends care more about looking busy than actually doing their jobs.
  This rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 1694, as my 
colleague mentioned, the Fannie and Freddie Open Records Act of 2017. 
It is a fine bill designed to strengthen transparency at Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac. I support the legislation. My Democratic colleagues 
support the legislation. The Republican majority supports the 
legislation. In fact, I haven't found one person yet who doesn't 
support the bill.
  Freedom of information is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, and I support 
FOIA, but what about the freedom from the threat of a government 
shutdown?
  What about freedom from the threat of a default on our national debt?
  What about freedom to know what our President's conflicts of interest 
are and to see his tax returns?
  What about the freedom from having our healthcare protections ripped 
away, protections like essential health benefits and protections for 
people with preexisting conditions?
  And what about the freedom to know what Congressional Republicans and 
the White House are doing to our healthcare system behind closed doors?
  None of this seems to matter.
  But the most troubling part of this rule is that it declares blanket 
martial law, through Saturday, that allows Republicans to bring 
anything--and I mean anything--to the floor between now and then.
  Now, I understand the importance of rushing something to the floor 
when the government is about to run out of money; although, I would 
point out that we are 7 months into the fiscal year and my Republican 
friends set this deadline themselves back in December, so there is 
absolutely no excuse for Congress to come within hours of yet another 
shutdown. But this is just the latest example of Republican 
obstruction, obfuscation, and incompetence that has, once again, 
brought us to the edge of the cliff. And, Mr. Speaker, this is no way 
to govern.
  This rule would allow Republican leadership to rush anything to the 
floor within hours of it being released. Not just appropriations, it 
gives them blanket authority to jam us with whatever new disaster they 
cook up with the White House in the backroom of Capitol Hill, and that 
includes this latest healthcare deal that I have heard so much about 
this week.
  Of course, with it being a backroom deal, we were relying on news 
reports all week to clue us in to these terrible new provisions; and it 
was only last night, around midnight, when the Republicans finally 
posted their newest healthcare proposal that we were able to confirm 
just how bad it really is.
  Incredibly, this new amendment will make the bill even worse than 
before. Honest to God, Mr. Speaker, I didn't know that was possible.
  In addition to killing the requirement to provide basic, crucial, 
essential benefits like maternity care and prescription drugs and 
emergency services, this new amendment will also completely gut 
protections for people with preexisting conditions. In fact, this 
amendment directly violates the commitment made by President Trump and 
House Republicans to protect those with preexisting conditions.
  This newest proposal will allow insurers to charge an unlimited ``age 
tax'' to older Americans, and, to make matters even worse, Republicans 
have set up a system that would allow women to once again be charged 
more than men for health coverage. It will bring us back to those bad 
old days when insurance companies could charge women more because they 
said being a woman was a preexisting condition.
  Give me a break.
  All of this, on top of a disaster of a healthcare bill that will 
cause 24 million Americans to lose their healthcare coverage. And in 
addition, their bill would cut Medicaid by close to $1 trillion, and 
take that $1 trillion and give it, in the form of tax breaks, to the 
wealthiest individuals in the country.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the way we should be running this House. All 
of this is being done to appease the most conservative fringes within 
the Republican Conference in an attempt to deliver, I guess, a 
political ``win'' to Donald Trump so he can celebrate 100 days in 
office. It doesn't matter what the details are, he just wants to be 
able to tout a victory of some sort.
  Well, this is not a victory for the American people. This would be a 
disaster for the American people.
  It is no wonder that my Republican colleagues have been overwhelmed 
by angry calls from their constituents at home demanding that they 
oppose this reckless and heartless bill. As one Republican remarked: 
``I spent the whole work period hearing from people pissed about 
preexisting conditions. This isn't helpful.'' That is one of my 
Republican colleagues.
  Now, under this rule, these dangerous backroom deals could be rushed 
to the floor without any proper deliberations, but they will have a 
very real, very serious, and very dangerous consequence for millions of 
Americans. Real lives are at stake here.
  Now, I can't help but also note that this newest amendment exempts 
Congress from the terrible impacts of this

[[Page 6063]]

proposal. Can you believe that? Knowing just how damaging these new 
provisions are, Republicans wanted to keep healthcare protections for 
themselves but set up another system for their constituents.
  Now, it was only after the press caught Republicans with their hands 
in the cookie jar that they introduced yet another bill to unexempt 
themselves. But the new bill to unexempt Congress would require a 60-
vote supermajority in the Senate. What are the odds that is going to 
happen, Mr. Speaker?
  Are we seriously supposed to trust that they won't exempt themselves 
from this terrible plan, to trust that the Senate can muster 60 votes 
to pass this provision or anything else?
  Let me be clear: this maneuver is a procedural sleight of hand. This 
is legislative smoke and mirrors designed to give Republicans, who 
tried to pull a fast one and got caught, a talking point.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans wrote this bill, so change the damn bill. 
Don't just say: ``Trust us. We will pass another bill to fix the fix, 
and we will get the Senate not to make any changes. Oh, while we are at 
it, we will get a supermajority in the Senate to support it.'' Who do 
you think you are fooling, Mr. Speaker?
  I urge all my colleagues to defeat this martial law rule, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would tell my friend that I think this is exactly the right way to 
be moving legislation, and I am proud that we are doing it. Big bills 
are hard and big bills are sloppy. Can we do better on big bills? Of 
course we can. Of course we can.
  But you and I have been on the Rules Committee together, Mr. Speaker. 
The Rules Committee process, you have seen it happen. If I am down here 
talking about a small bill that everybody agrees on, folks want to know 
why it is we are not doing something bigger. And when I bring a big 
bill down here tomorrow, folks are going to want to know why I have 
rushed it to the floor and we are not doing something that has more 
bipartisan agreement on it instead.
  These issues are hard, and that is why they have sent serious men and 
women here to try to solve them. I want to do everything that my friend 
from Massachusetts has talked about, Mr. Speaker. I want to see a 
healthcare bill go across the floor. I want to see a full-year funding 
bill go across the floor. Shoot, I don't stop there. I want to see the 
budget go across the floor. I want to see a transportation and 
infrastructure bill go across the floor. I have got a tax bill I want 
to see go across the floor. The list is long.
  And while my friend from Massachusetts and I are down here working on 
this, I have got 433 other colleagues out there working on that, and my 
great hope is that we are going to deliver on those things in the very 
near future, too.
  But today, Mr. Speaker, today isn't a day for recriminations. Today 
is a day for celebrations, in that what we have here is a bill that we 
have worked through the regular order process.
  You are not going to hear one person, Mr. Speaker, not one, come down 
to the floor and say this bill wasn't moved through the process in the 
right way. You are not going to hear one person come down to the floor 
and say their voice was silenced on this bill. You are not going to 
hear one person come down to the floor and say their input was turned 
away on this bill.
  We do so much that we wish we could do better, Mr. Speaker. When we 
have these opportunities to celebrate those things we are doing right, 
I sometimes wish we would take a little more time to focus on our 
successes. There will always be time to turn our attention back to our 
failures.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleague, I don't have any 
problem with the underlying bill, but I would argue with him that I 
think most of our colleagues probably don't know what the hell we are 
doing here because, in the scheme of things, this is not terribly 
consequential. I think our problem is the fact that we are at the edge 
of another crisis where, if we don't fund the government by tomorrow, 
we shut this place down, we shut the government down, and that has an 
impact on the American people.
  I think what our objection is is that the rule that you bring to us 
here today to consider the underlying bill also allows my Republican 
friends to bring up anything they want between now and Saturday, 
including, you know, an awful healthcare repeal bill.
  And by the way, when we talk about regular order, it would be nice, 
especially when it comes to the big things like health care, that we 
actually do things like hearings and listen to what experts have to say 
and our constituents and patients and doctors, I mean, a whole bunch of 
people who have a stake in our healthcare system.
  The bill that my friends brought to the floor, that they had to pull, 
never had a single hearing and, in all likelihood, whatever monstrosity 
they bring to the floor in the future will probably not be the result 
of regular order. It will be the result of a backroom deal where very 
few people have any input.
  So I can't celebrate today. I am very concerned for my constituents. 
I am very concerned for the millions of people who might lose their 
health care. I am concerned for this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, President Trump's first 100 days have been embroiled in 
controversy and shrouded in secrecy. The American people deserve a heck 
of a lot better. They deserve transparency from their government. They 
deserve to know which special interests are getting face time with the 
President and his top aides and whether the White House is being used 
to personally enrich President Trump and his family.
  It is our duty, as the people's Representatives, to hold this 
administration accountable, an administration that has so many 
conflicts of interest, financial conflicts of interest, that it is on a 
collision course with corruption. So, if we defeat the previous 
question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up 
Representative Katherine Clark's resolution, H. Res. 286, which would 
force the White House to release information to us regarding the 
President's many potential conflicts of interest, including his tax 
returns, involvement in his business empire, and White House and Mar-a-
Lago visitor logs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Katherine Clark) to discuss our 
proposal.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague 
from Massachusetts. I am glad to share in this bipartisan moment of 
admiration for his work with my colleague from Georgia.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question so that we can bring a resolution to the floor. This 
resolution will ensure that the House meets its constitutional 
responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch by 
investigating potential conflicts of interest of President Donald J. 
Trump.

                              {time}  1300

  It reads: ``Whereas, on October 18, 2016, then-candidate Donald J. 
Trump communicated via Twitter: `I will Make Our Government Honest 
Again--believe me. But first, I'm going to have to #draintheswamp in 
DC';
  ``Whereas, President Trump subsequently nominated a team of wealthy 
and connected insiders to lead his Cabinet, many of whom have been 
forced to

[[Page 6064]]

withdraw from consideration because of irrevocable conflicts of 
interest;
  ``Whereas, as President-elect, President Trump announced that he 
would be `leaving his great business' to his adult children, a move he 
felt would be `visually important';
  ``Whereas, President Trump has taken no steps to untangle his 
financial interest in his business holdings, to limit his ability to 
advise the nominal managers of The Trump Organization, or to prevent 
other interests from currying favor with the White House by doing 
business with companies that might benefit the President's bottom line;
  ``Whereas, President Trump has reversed White House policy and now 
refuses to release visitor logs to the public;
  ``Whereas, on May 30, 2014, President Trump stated: `If I decide to 
run for office, I will produce my tax returns, absolutely';
  ``Whereas, on January 24, 2016, President Trump stated that he would 
release his `very big returns . . . in the next period of time';
  ``Whereas, on February 25, 2016, President Trump changed his position 
and stated that, although he could not release his tax returns while 
under audit, he would do so `as soon as the audit is done';
  ``Whereas, on May 11, 2016, President Trump communicated via Twitter: 
`In interview I told @AP that my taxes are under routine audit and I 
would release my tax returns when the audit is complete, not after 
election!';
  ``Whereas, on January 22, 2017, White House senior adviser Kellyanne 
Conway stated that `the White House response is that he's not going to 
release his returns';
  ``Whereas, President Trump has directed the Congress to act on 
comprehensive reform of the Internal Revenue Code;
  ``Whereas, without the President's tax returns, the public cannot 
know how the full extent to which any proposed reforms will personally 
benefit the President;
  ``Whereas, on January 11, 2017, President Trump insisted that he has 
`no dealings with Russia';
  ``Whereas, it has been widely reported that President Trump sought 
and received funding from Russian investors, especially when American 
banks stopped lending to him after his multiple bankruptcies;
  ``Whereas, Donald Trump, Jr., who runs day-to-day business operations 
for his father's companies, has stated: `Russians make up a pretty 
disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of 
money pouring in from Russia';
  ``Whereas, on March 20, 2017, James B. Comey, Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, confirmed the existence of a Federal 
investigation into multiple connections between the Trump campaign and 
the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin;
  ``Whereas, it has been reported that President Trump has personally 
guaranteed over $300 million in loans to German financial institution 
Deutsche Bank AG;
  ``Whereas, the Trump administration is now responsible for overseeing 
multiple investigations into the trading and lending practices of 
Deutsche Bank AG and for negotiating a potentially multibillion-dollar 
settlement with the bank related to its trading of mortgage-backed 
securities;
  ``Whereas, these matters represent only a few of the many instances 
in which President Trump has broken his promise to `drain the swamp';
  ``Whereas, under the Constitution of the United States, the United 
States Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight of the 
executive branch of government;
  ``Whereas, the majority of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform of the House of Representatives rejected an amendment to have 
the committee's oversight plan that would have tasked the committee 
with investigating the President's conflicts of interest;
  ``Whereas, members of the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Foreign 
Affairs, the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Ways and Means of the 
House of Representatives have each advanced resolutions of inquiry 
designed to obtain information about the President's ongoing conflicts 
of interest;
  ``Whereas, the majority has blocked each of those resolutions from 
consideration on the House floor;
  ``Whereas, the continuing refusal of the majority to conduct even 
basic oversight of the Trump administration diminishes the status of 
the Congress as a coequal branch of government;
  ``Whereas, this continued neglect undermines the credibility of the 
House of Representatives and raises a question of the privileges of the 
House;
  ``Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives 
directs the following persons to take the following actions:
  ``(1) President Trump is directed to transmit to the House of 
Representatives copies of any document, record, memorandum, 
correspondence, or other communication in possession of the Executive 
Office of the President, or any portion of such communication, that 
refers or relates to President Trump's proposal to maintain an interest 
in his business holdings, while turning over day-to-day operation of 
those interests to his sons Donald J. Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump.
  ``(2) In support of transparency in government and the longstanding 
tradition of the disclosure of tax returns of Presidents and 
Presidential candidates, the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to 
provide the Committee on Ways and Means with the tax return information 
of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2007 through 2016 for review in closed 
executive session by the committee as provided under section 6103 of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and directs the committee to hold a 
vote on reporting such information to the full House of 
Representatives.
  ``(3) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics is directed to 
publish any waiver or exception granted to any officer or employee of 
the government to the January 28, 2017, executive order entitled 
`Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees'.
  ``(4) The Administrator of General Services is directed to provide 
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
Representatives with any legal analysis supporting its March 23, 2017, 
conclusion that Trump International Hotel in Washington may maintain 
its lease with the Federal Government, despite an express prohibition 
on elected officials taking part in the lease.
  ``(5) President Trump is directed to provide visitor logs for both 
the White House and Mar-a-Lago to the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform of the House of Representatives on a rolling and 
ongoing basis, and directs the committee to hold ongoing votes on 
reporting the contents of such visitor logs to the full House of 
Representatives.''
  Mr. Speaker, I filed this resolution because it appears to me and the 
American public that Mr. Trump has drained the swamp and funneled it 
into the Oval Office.
  Trump's billionaire, special interest friends are now in charge of 
policies that impact every American, every family, and every child. 
Everything from education to health care to taxes are in the hands of 
people who have never sent their kids to public schools, who have never 
had to take out a loan to pay for college, and who have never had a 
medical bill they couldn't afford--and all of this is in the hands of a 
President who refuses to release his tax returns.
  While Trump fights to keep Americans in the dark about which of his 
other friends he owes special favors to--whether it is Big Oil, foreign 
banks, lobbyists at Mar-a-Lago, or the Russians--Republicans seem to be 
happy to look the other way.
  Transparency and accountability are not partisan ideas. Families at 
home deserve a Congress that works together to be the necessary check 
that our Constitution provides over this unaccountable administration. 
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.

[[Page 6065]]


  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle 
that they had me at hello. When they said this was a great bill 
underlying this resolution and they didn't see any controversy, they 
thought we ought to pass this and they thought this was a good step 
forward for the American people, yet you had me. I would like to do 
that.
  I remember, Mr. Speaker, a friend of mine, his name was Jay Pierson. 
He served in this institution for over four decades. His job was not to 
be particularly partisan one way or the other. His job was to make sure 
this place functioned. I wonder what goes on over the 40 years of 
changes in the way that we treat each other on the House floor and the 
way that we work with each other on the House floor.
  My friends have a perfectly legitimate concern. In fact, they brought 
it up as a privileged resolution already this year. It has been tabled. 
I recognize that my friends and I have disagreements--vast 
disagreements--in numerous areas of public policy, but today we have a 
chance to talk about one of the agreements that we have. I wonder, Mr. 
Speaker, what folks back home watching think. Do they think, just like 
the media loves to report, that, golly, those guys can't even agree on 
what time to start in the morning?
  For Pete's sake, we have worked a bill through the process, just like 
we learned about in civics class. Don't make me sing ``I'm just a bill, 
and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill,'' Mr. Speaker, because that is 
exactly the process that we all want bills to go through, and we have 
done that here today.
  We can't even take a moment to talk about how successfully we have 
worked together, not even a moment to talk about how the process 
worked, not even a moment to talk about how we delivered for folks. We 
have to shift gears to something that is not even the topic of the bill 
today. We will have time to talk about every controversy we want. If 
folks want to go fisticuffs with one another, I am certain we will make 
time for that, but right now we have a chance to talk about those 
things that unite us.
  In the spirit of dispelling those myths, Mr. Speaker, dispelling 
those myths that things don't get done around here, dispelling those 
myths that we don't respect each other, and dispelling those myths that 
we can't work together, I want to dispel the myth that what this 
underlying rule does is it provides Republicans with a pathway for 
doing whatever it is they want to do whenever it is they want to do it, 
because that doesn't really sound like fair play. I wouldn't want to 
support such a bill either.
  What this rule does do is, contrary to the rules, allow us to bring 
up suspension bills at any time. Now, what a suspension bill is, Mr. 
Speaker, as you know, it is a bill that can pass not with a simple 
majority, but with a two-thirds majority. So this rule says, forbid the 
thought, should bipartisanship break out in the next 72 hours, you all 
should be able to bring those bills to the floor and deliver it for the 
American people.
  Well, dag gum it, I support that. I don't look at that as a way of 
Republicans to manipulate the system. I look at it as a way for the 
United States Congress to deliver on behalf of the system, and I am 
glad we are doing it.
  Number two, the bill says, if the Rules Committee, in its wisdom, 
passes a rule to bring a bill to the floor rather than have that bill 
lay over for a night, you can bring that bill to the floor directly. So 
my friend is absolutely right when he says that passing this rule would 
allow us to rush legislation to the floor. It would rush that 
commonsense, bipartisan legislation that two-thirds of us would agree 
on, we can rush those results across the finish line for the American 
people; and, if the Rules Committee acts and we pass that rule on the 
floor of the House, it will allow us to consider the legislation that 
that rule would bring to the floor on the same day instead of waiting 
24 hours.
  Now, what my friend says about having an opportunity to read the 
bills is critically important--critically important. I want to point 
out because, again, folks have so many concerns about what goes on in 
this institution, I got lots of things I can gripe about, but when we 
are getting it right, I want to make sure that we are telling folks 
that we are getting it right.
  This tradition of self-flagellation in this institution drives me 
crazy because, when we tear ourselves down, Mr. Speaker, it is not us 
who bears the cost of that. It is our constituents. It is the board of 
directors of the United States of America. It is the folks who come 
beyond us.
  We have a responsibility to lead this institution, and when we are 
doing it right, we ought to tell the American people that we are doing 
it right. For example, there might be a healthcare vote that comes to 
the floor of this House in the next 24, 48 hours. I don't want to get 
my expectations high for that, Mr. Speaker, but I sure would be 
enthusiastic if that happened. If that were to happen, my friend is 
exactly right: we will go to the Rules Committee; we will pass a rule; 
we will bring it to the floor; and we will bring it up the same day. 
But the language was posted yesterday, and the vote wouldn't happen 
until tomorrow. So when folks say let's leave the language out there 
for folks to have a chance to read it, let's not rush something 
through, we have got 3 days built into the system.

                              {time}  1315

  That is not a rule of the House. I want to make that clear. There is 
no rule in this institution that says you have got to present a bill 
before you can pass a bill to read it and find out what is in it. This 
is not a rule of this House. It is a policy of ours. It is a policy of 
who we are and of let's do this; let's make this our commitment to make 
this happen. Mr. Speaker, it does not always happen, but most of the 
time it does. I celebrate that success.
  Again, thinking about those things that unite us instead of divide 
us, I just listened to my friend, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, make an 
incredibly eloquent plea for her bill. She said, if we defeat the 
previous question--that vote is coming up very soon--we will take up 
her piece of legislation, which was just handed to me about 3\1/2\ 
minutes ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I get it that sometimes people think that they have such 
urgent ideas that those ideas need to come to the floor in a hurry. I 
will settle for either outcome: that it is okay that we bring ideas to 
the floor in a hurry and that it is okay if you hand somebody a bill 
3\1/2\ minutes ago and tell them you want to bring it to the floor 30 
minutes from now. If that is okay, then let that be okay. If what we 
need is for bills to lay overnight, then let that be okay.
  We have a process here that is built on mutual respect, that is built 
on years of tradition that men and women paid a tremendous price for, 
that they provided tremendous leadership for. In the name of short-term 
political gains, I want to make sure that we don't tear down those 
long-term policy successes.
  This institution should be a source of pride for the American people. 
I don't believe that it is today. The responsibility of making it that 
source of pride falls on you and me. We are the only ones who can get 
that job done. We have an opportunity today to do just a little bit of 
that, and I hope we take advantage of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say to the gentleman from Georgia: he had me at hello, too. If 
all he said was ``hello'' and introduced the underlying bill, we would 
be done. There would be no controversy. The underlying bill is being 
brought to the floor under a rule that is atrocious and that, quite 
frankly, every Member of this House should be ashamed about. Under this 
martial law rule, you can bring anything up at any time you want, at a 
moment's notice, without people having an opportunity to actually 
understand what they are going to vote on.
  The gentleman talked about they might bring up the healthcare bill 
between now and Saturday. He said: Yesterday, we posted the text of our 
new

[[Page 6066]]

amendment. He used the word ``yesterday'' loosely. They posted it at 
midnight last night. I was asleep at midnight; I don't know about the 
gentleman.
  The bottom line is, there is nothing that says that they can't change 
the text again and again and again and again, offer more amendments, 
because that is what they have been doing since they first began their 
effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
  On something as important as health care, on something that could 
affect millions and millions of people in this country, that could 
throw 24 million people off of health care, that will cut Medicaid by a 
trillion dollars, that will compromise Medicare, that will take away 
essential benefits, people ought to know what the heck they are voting 
on.
  We ought to have regular order on these major pieces of legislation. 
Why is that so controversial? How about a hearing on health care? The 
idea that we would like the opportunity to know what we are voting on, 
to do this in a thoughtful way, is so offensive to my Republican 
colleagues. I am flabbergasted by this--to basically defend this 
process.
  We have to use a procedural motion to be able to try to force a 
debate or bring to the floor the bill of my colleague, Katherine Clark, 
which basically calls on the President to release his tax returns and 
calls for some transparency with regard to visitor logs at the White 
House and Mar-a-Lago. We have to resort to a procedural motion because 
the Republican majority basically blocks us from bringing anything to 
the floor under a normal process.
  The Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. 
Yet the bill that we have before us, the underlying bill that we are 
going to consider later today, could probably pass on a suspension.
  By the way, we have no problem with giving you same-day authority on 
suspension bills. Those aren't controversial. We don't even have a 
problem, although you should have prepared for this, with you being 
able to bring a bill to the floor quickly to keep the government 
running.
  It is the broad authority that you have given yourselves to bring 
anything at a moment's notice, without anybody having a chance to 
review it. That is what we have a problem with. Quite frankly, my 
Republican colleagues ought to have a problem with that, too.
  Mr. Speaker, shortly after taking the gavel, Speaker Ryan said: ``I 
want to have a process that is more open, more inclusive, more 
deliberative, more participatory, and that is what we are trying to 
do.'' That was the Speaker of the House.
  Unfortunately, Republicans do not appear to be trying very hard. The 
current Congress is on track to become the most closed in history, with 
an incredible 26 closed rules in this year's first quarter out of 42 
total rules. The Republican majority shut out all amendments from both 
Democrats and Republicans on fully 62 percent of the legislation 
considered by the House under a rule.
  Do Members realize that? On most bills, even they are not allowed to 
offer amendments. No amendments at all. Under a closed rule, you can't 
even offer an amendment to fix a typo.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to take a look at this 
chart. This shows closed rules in the past decade and for the first 
quarter of the year.
  Do you see this really long red line on the top? I am happy to bring 
it over to my colleagues here. If you see that line, you will see that 
the bottom line is that this shows that this Congress has an abysmal 
record with regard to an open, fair process.
  When we were in charge from 2007-2010, we averaged only 8 closed 
rules in the same timeframe. This Congress is more than three times as 
closed. We have 26 closed rules in the first quarter alone; that is not 
to mention zero open rules. You are even crushing your record for 2015, 
the year that you beat the all-time closed rule record. This is not 
something to be proud of.
  What has this historically closed process brought to the House? 
Complete chaos. Virtually no legislative accomplishments. A lousy 
process usually leads to lousy legislation. We learned that from your 
awful, disastrous attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care 
Act.
  By the way, I should point out that while we were meeting here 
today--I guess some of the advocacy organizations had a chance to read 
the language you posted last night at midnight--so far, the American 
Hospital Association, AARP, the American Medical Association, March of 
Dimes, and America's Essential Hospitals have all come out against this 
terrible, new Republican health proposal. In fact, the American 
Hospital Association said: ``The amendment proposed this week would 
dramatically worsen the bill.''
  I would just say to my colleagues: We don't have a problem with 
suspensions. We don't have a problem with a rule that will allow us to 
keep the government running. We have a problem with your closed, 
authoritarian approach to the legislation. We have a problem with the 
prospect that you might bring a healthcare bill to the floor that will 
impact millions and millions of Americans, and nobody will have read 
it, nobody will even have any guarantee that what you posted last night 
at midnight will even be what we are voting on.
  This is a big deal. It affects my constituents and it affects your 
constituents. We ought to be doing a better job around here, and this 
process, quite frankly, stinks.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia). Members are 
reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Simply, again, I reiterate that everybody in this House, Democrats 
and Republicans alike, should be ashamed at the way this House is being 
run. The American people who are watching should be appalled by the way 
this House is being run.
  I don't care whether you are a liberal or conservative or fall 
somewhere in the middle. You ought to have some confidence that what 
the people's House is doing is actually thoughtful and is actually in 
the best interest of the people of this country. That is not what is 
happening here.
  Yes, the underlying bill that we are going to talk about later today, 
we have no problem with it. It could have passed overwhelmingly under a 
suspension vote. I am happy to support it. No problem.
  I have no problem, by the way, with bringing up suspensions to fill 
up time as we try to get a resolution to the continuing resolution. We 
have no problem, quite frankly, with bringing up a continuing 
resolution in a quick fashion.
  This rule continues a lousy process that has been embraced by the 
current Republican leadership in this House. There is no excuse for 
this. When it comes to big bills, big legislation, like health care, 
which is a very personal thing to people in this country, the American 
people deserve much better than this.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on 
this lousy rule and stand up to your leadership and demand that they 
open this House up not only to Democratic amendments but to Republican 
amendments as well. This is a deliberative body. We ought to be able to 
deliberate.
  On big issues like health care, it ought not be some backroom deal 
that a few people put together. We saw the result of those backroom 
deals with a lousy, terrible, awful bill that would hurt millions of 
Americans. We ought to do it out in the open.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 6067]]

  Mr. Speaker, I heard a group of constituents ask one of our freshman 
Members what they found to be the most surprising part of this 
institution, having served here for about 100 days, and it was with no 
small amount of joy that they gave exactly the same answer that I would 
have given after my first 100 days. They said to their constituents: 
What really surprised me is how earnest, hardworking, conscientious, 
dedicated, and how committed each and every Member of this institution 
is.
  There are a couple of bad apples that don't follow under that 
perspective, but, by and large, the surprise when you get elected to 
Congress is about the high quality of the people who you get to work 
with, the commitment of the people you get to work with, the conviction 
of the people who you get to work with.
  What you have heard from my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker, I 
will tell you, is 100 percent authentic. There is no one down here 
playing for the cameras today. I could make a powerful case that while 
cameras provide a great deal of sunlight, they create a great deal of 
unnecessary heat, as well. Folks sometimes are performing for cameras 
in this institution, but not my friend from Massachusetts.
  What you heard from my friend from Massachusetts was absolutely 
sincere concern about public policy. I agree with him. I believe we 
should have an open and deliberative process in this institution.
  You and I and my friend from Massachusetts don't work for the 
leadership. The leadership works for us. There is not one Member of the 
leadership team who votes for me. I vote for them.
  We have an opportunity to direct the way this institution is led. 
Candidly, I couldn't be more proud than I am of the way that Paul Ryan 
leads this institution. He is not the Republican Speaker. We have a 
Republican leader. The Democrats have a Democratic leader. Paul Ryan is 
the Speaker of the House. I am incredibly proud of the way he leads 
this institution.
  The way to make it even better, Mr. Speaker, is not to cite every 
single thing that we do as a failure. It is just not so. Let's find 
those things that we do that we can do better, and let's identify them 
and work together, but let's celebrate those successes.
  For example, my friend pointed to the number of closed rules that 
have come to the floor. For folks who don't follow the process closely, 
a closed rule means there were no amendments allowed.
  Well, many of those bills, Mr. Speaker, were bills that the Rules 
Committee sent out an email to all of Capitol Hill and said: We are 
bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. Here it is for you to 
read it and digest it. And if you have any ideas about how to make this 
bill better, you send them to us, and we will take a look.
  When we did that, Mr. Speaker, not one single idea came back from the 
Republican or the Democratic side of the aisle for improving the bill.

                              {time}  1330

  So, yes, the bill came to the floor. The rule was closed not because 
we are trying to silence the minority, not because we are trying to 
silence elements of the majority, but because we had a completely open 
process, and it turned out that regular order got it right the first 
time. We don't need to identify that as a failure. That is an 
unmitigated success.
  Some of those closed rules, Mr. Speaker, came because we were 
bringing legislation under the Congressional Review Act. Now, for folks 
who don't know the Congressional Review Act, that is that act that was 
passed so that Congress could go back and review regulations that had 
been passed by the administration to make sure those regulations 
followed congressional intent.
  By definition, those bills have to be narrow and targeted. We can't 
have an amendment about healthcare legislation added to our waters of 
the U.S. Congressional Review Act bill. We can't have folks go and add 
a pay raise for our military men and women to that Congressional Review 
Act bill. We want a pay raise for our men and women in uniform. We 
passed it out of the House. It is sitting in the United States Senate, 
but it can't be on a CRA piece of legislation. So, yes, every single 
one of those bills came to the floor under a closed rule not because 
someone was trying to silence the minority, not because someone wanted 
to silence elements of the majority, but because that is the process 
that we have to work through together, and, by golly, we are doing it 
right.
  My friend from Massachusetts talked about what has gone on in this 
body. I will tell you, this body has moved more legislation to the 
President's desk for his signature in these first 100 days than any 
President since Truman. We have had Republicans running the show, we 
have had Democrats running the show, but it is only when we 
collaboratively have been running the show that we have moved more 
bills to the President's desk than any other Congress in modern 
American history. I am proud of that. Some of those votes went my way, 
some of those votes didn't go my way, but we worked each one of those 
through the process, and we did each one of those things together.
  Mr. Speaker, I would love to tell you what is going to happen over 
the next 18 months. I have no idea. But I know that to the extent that 
this body is full of accusations, to the extent that this body is full 
of mistrust, to the extent that this body is full of frustration and 
condemnation, we are going to go down one path.
  To the extent that this body isn't afraid to tell folks back home 
when we are working hard together, to the extent that this body isn't 
ashamed that we rolled up our sleeves together and got some things done 
that folks thought we wouldn't be able to get done, to the extent that 
this body isn't afraid to confront the fact that we are always going to 
have disagreements, but from time to time bipartisanship breaks out and 
bills move a little more quickly than they do at other times. If folks 
are willing to accept our successes with the same zeal that they 
celebrate our failures, Mr. Speaker, I tell you, we are going to create 
a different institution over these next 18 months. Again, not under 
Democratic leadership, not under Republican leadership, but under Paul 
Ryan's leadership as Speaker of this entire House of Representatives.
  We have one such opportunity today. I encourage folks to go to the 
web page of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I believe 
it is oversight.house.gov. Those folks are working on some of the 
toughest issues in this town, and often they are bitterly divided along 
partisan lines. They are working on those issues that tend to separate 
Americans rather than unite them. They have sent us a bill today that 
was so widely supported, it passed by a voice vote unanimously out of 
that committee. It then went to the Committee on Rules, where every 
single Member of Congress was invited to improve it. Three Members of 
Congress took us up on the invitation, and every single one of their 
amendments was made in order by this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we have lots of things that are going to bring my friend 
from Massachusetts and I back down to this floor, and we are going to 
disagree heartily about those. Today we have an example of something 
that brings us together. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
this rule that brings our OGR unanimously passed bill to the floor, and 
vote ``yes'' on that underlying bill, just as our Republican and 
Democratic colleagues on the Committee on Oversight and Government 
Reform did.
  Mr. Speaker, there are lots of challenges ahead of us. This is one we 
can put in the books as a success for our constituents back home. I ask 
for a ``yes'' vote.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 280 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 286) 
     directing certain officials of the executive branch to 
     provide information to the House of Representatives that will 
     enable the House to

[[Page 6068]]

     meet its constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight 
     of the executive branch by investigating potential conflicts 
     of interests of President Donald J. Trump. The resolution 
     shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to 
     adoption without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 286.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and 
suspending the rules and passing S. 496.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 193, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 229]

                               YEAS--230

     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
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     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
     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
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--193

     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
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     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
     Payne
     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
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko

[[Page 6069]]


     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bucshon
     Chaffetz
     Marino
     Newhouse
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Walorski

                              {time}  1359

  Messrs. VARGAS, KILMER, NOLAN, DEMINGS, HUFFMAN, and Mrs. TORRES 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GROTHMAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 192, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 230]

                               AYES--226

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     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
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     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
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--192

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     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
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     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
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bucshon
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Hurd
     Marino
     Newhouse
     Royce (CA)
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Stewart
     Valadao
     Walorski


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1407

  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.
  Stated for:
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 230.
  Mr. ROYCE of California. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 230.
  Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 230.

                          ____________________