[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13452-13461]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3354, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
  INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 504 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 504

       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 further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 3354) making appropriations 
     for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and 
     for other purposes.
       Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments 
     en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution, and 
     available pro forma amendments described in section 4 of 
     House Resolution 500.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules shall be considered 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, may 
     be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment except amendments 
     described in section 4 of House Resolution 500, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
     House or in the Committee of the Whole.
       (c) All points of order against further amendments printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments 
     en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except amendments described 
     in section 4 of House Resolution 500, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as 
     amended, to the House with such further amendments as may 
     have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

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

                              {time}  1245


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

[[Page 13453]]

may have 5 legislative days within which 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, it is going to be a good day. It is going 
to be a good day.
  I don't know if you came down to Washington as a young man. I 
remember sitting right up there on the second row of the gallery, and I 
came into the Chamber and I was so excited. It was my first visit to 
see the people's House.
  The Reading Clerk was standing there at that podium and read and 
read. I had absolutely no idea what was going on, and here nobody hands 
you a pamphlet or anything to tell you what is happening on the floor 
of the House. I thought the activity was going to happen down here, and 
it was all going on up there at the podium.
  That has been 40 years ago now. I now see that however long that 
conversation happens, it lays the groundwork for what is going to be an 
even greater conversation here on the floor of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I am fond of saying that if you come to this institution 
on the right day, you are going to see a festival of democracy take 
place right here. Today is going to be one of those days.
  If you were on the House floor yesterday, you saw us take up the 
first of these divisions in this appropriations bill. Today, because of 
the work that my friend from New York and I did with the rest of the 
members of the Rules Committee right up there last night, we are 
bringing to the floor the remaining four divisions of H.R. 3354; 224 
additional amendments. 224 additional amendments. Division A is the 
Interior section; division C is the Commerce, Justice, Science section; 
division D is the Financial Services section; division F is the Labor, 
HHS, and Education section.
  When I was on the floor yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I talked about how 
proud I was of the work that we have all done here together. This 
annual appropriations process has been conducted in a more 
comprehensive fashion this year than in any other year in my memory.
  When we get jammed, you end up with one of those long-term, yearlong 
continuing resolutions that shut out every Member's voice. In a good 
year, maybe, you end up with one of those giant leadership-negotiated 
White House and the leader of the House and the Senate omnibus 
appropriations bills that shut out all but two or three voices.
  This year, the Appropriations Committee, beginning its work way back 
in April, has worked through every single appropriations bill one by 
one at the committee level, and we are seeing the culmination of that 
effort here on the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been since 2010 that the House has finished its 
work before the September 30 fiscal year deadline. It was the 2009 
calendar year. They were doing the work for the 2010 fiscal year. It is 
hard to get this done, and it doesn't happen because Democrats are 
successful or Republicans are successful. It happens because the 
collaboration that we have together is successful, and we are seeing 
the result of that today.
  If we pass the underlying rule, we will make in order those 224 
amendments, we will begin that process of debating the last four 
divisions, and we will have the voices of this House heard.
  We went until midnight last night, Mr. Speaker. We went until 
midnight the night before that. I suspect midnight is going to seem 
early to us where we are headed over the next couple of days. But at 
the end of that process, Republicans, Democrats, folks from all regions 
of the country, are going to be able to look each other in the eye and 
know that--in a way that makes folks back home proud--we worked through 
each and every appropriations bill and we got our work done on time.
  That is why I ran for Congress, Mr. Speaker, to deliver results back 
home, and that is why I am proud to be standing with my friend from New 
York today delivering on those promises.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, what is happening with the appropriations bills is 
unprecedented. After passing four appropriations bills earlier this 
year, we are now considering the remaining eight appropriations bills 
this week in 2 days. That means that we are debating the funding for 
roughly two-thirds of discretionary Federal spending bills in just over 
4 days.
  Has any Member here really had the time to read all 1,035 pages of 
these eight bills? Better yet, has anyone had time to read nearly all 
the thousand amendments and determine what the impact of each one would 
be?
  This is the appropriations process we are talking about; the process 
that used to take us days and weeks and was perfectly open so that all 
Members of the House were able to propose amendments on the floor. 
These are the bills that fund programs that impact the life of every 
American every single day.
  But we are not giving them any serious consideration they deserve, 
and the minority has been virtually, literally, I would say, shut out 
of the process altogether.
  When the majority took control of Congress and the White House, they 
promised regular order. They have not only broken that promise, they 
have shattered it and stomped on it. Speaker Ryan is the only speaker 
in the history of tracking statistics to never have had a truly open 
rule.
  An open rule would allow any Member to offer an amendment that 
complies with the standing rules of the House and the Budget Act. Not a 
single one. A bad process, I believe, will lead to a bad product, and 
these bills are no exception. They are full of provisions that would do 
real harm to millions of Americans.
  Inside these bills, the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, passed in 
the wake of the biggest recession since the Great Depression, would be 
tattered. The biggest banks still in control of the people who got us 
in trouble in the first place would be allowed to run roughshod over 
the economy again, paving the way for another Great Recession or worse.
  Try as we could to find out what would be the substitute for Dodd-
Frank to prevent them from doing that again, there is no answer they 
would be able to do it. Under Dodd-Frank, we have had a record-setting 
streak of more than 80 consecutive months of private sector job growth. 
Mr. Speaker, this growth didn't come despite this law; it came because 
of it.
  There is also language here that would ramp up the majority's assault 
on women's health; provisions that would zero out funding for Title X, 
the Nation's only Federal program devoted to family planning. More than 
4 million women depend on it for access to contraception.
  The bills would also eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, which 
serves 2.5 million women and men every year. It is relied on not just 
for contraception, but for services like breast cancer screenings, 
wellness visits, and STI testing.
  The bills would be truly destructive if they ever became law. They 
don't appear to have the necessary votes to pass the Senate, since 
there are not 60 Senators willing to vote for this legislation, and 
that would make one wonder why are we even going through this charade, 
because we have only 9 legislative days left in the month of September. 
During those 9 days, we need to raise the debt ceiling to pay the bills 
we have already incurred, to fund the government for the following 
year, to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program; the 
Perkins Loan Program, which many low-income students rely on for their 
college education; and, very importantly, the Federal Aviation 
Administration. All of those expire on September 30.
  We also need to address the National Flood Insurance Program, which, 
on its current course, faces a shortfall of

[[Page 13454]]

more than $25 billion. And that will expire at the end of this month. 
We all know the horror of going through Hurricane Harvey, and now Irma, 
and with two more, as I understand it, starting their aim at us in the 
Atlantic.
  If we are going to do all of this, we have to get back to the orderly 
and thoughtful process. Congress can't wait for a disaster to always be 
at its doorstep before acting. We need to abandon legislation by chaos 
or emergency, which we often do for something that we could have done 
by scheduling.
  Two-thirds of the discretionary spending bills considered in a single 
week is absurd and irresponsible, and I would doubt has ever taken 
place before in the House of Representatives. It is time we took 
control of the House and got back to regular order, which we talk about 
all the time, but hardly anybody remembers. We hope for a better day, 
and we hope for it soon.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend is absolutely right, there is a lot of work to get done. 
That is why we both ran for Congress, to get that work done. I am 
incredibly optimistic that we will get that work done.
  I wish from time to time we would celebrate our successes as fiercely 
as we observe our failures. My friend is absolutely right, there was a 
time in congressional history where appropriations bills came to the 
floor and any Member could offer any amendment they wanted at any time, 
and the process could go on for days or weeks or months.
  To my friend's point, we can reminisce about those days and celebrate 
them, but we can't do it at the same time we observe the very limited 
deadlines that we have now trying to get work done.
  It was back on August 24 that the Rules Committee created a deadline 
and said: We want to have every Member have their voice heard. We want 
to hear from every single Member on every single appropriations bill to 
understand what it is you would do differently to have the bills serve 
America better.
  We created that deadline, Mr. Speaker, for exactly the reason my 
friend from New York suggested, and that is so folks would have the 
time to look at those amendments, to digest those amendments, to be 
thoughtful about those amendments.
  Now, it turns out even in a body of 435 Members, you can have some 
repetitive ideas. It turns out a lot of us think a single amendment is 
a good idea. The Rules Committee looked at amendments and found 
multiple Members had exactly the same idea. In order to speed the 
process along, we let one of those Members offer the amendment; we 
asked the other Members not to.
  That is not closing down the process. That is a good use of the 
American people's time, because we have so much that we must get done 
together.
  Mr. Speaker, for folks who care about openness--and I am one of those 
Members--I just want to remind you that it is not just the 1,000-plus 
amendments we looked at in the Rules Committee. It is thousands upon 
thousands that were worked through the Appropriations Subcommittee 
process, and then the Appropriations full committee process.

                              {time}  1300

  The appropriations process is one of the best opportunities for any 
Member in this Chamber to make their priorities known, act on those 
priorities, change the law of the land for the men and women they serve 
back home. Every single Member of this Chamber knows of that process, 
avails themselves of that process, and if we pass this rule, we will 
make several hundred more amendments in order and complete this process 
for the first time since 2009.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Rosen).
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted by House Republicans' 
continued efforts to end DACA and help this heartless administration 
tear families apart. Yesterday, House Republicans had a chance to 
rectify the Trump Administration's despicable decision to betray 
DREAMers in Nevada and across this country.
  Instead, they chose to block the immediate consideration of the 
bipartisan Dream Act. And then last night, House Republicans in the 
Rules Committee doubled down on this President's cowardly assault on 
DREAMers by blocking an amendment that I helped file with my colleagues 
Julia Brownley and Luis Correa.
  That would have prohibited funds from being used to deport DACA 
recipients. In Nevada, DACA has allowed more than 13,000 young people 
to come forward, pass background checks, and live and work legally. 
These young men and women who are brought here as children are 
patriotic and brave. They include college students, members of our 
military, and so many others who are contributing to our society.
  They fear they will be taken from their homes and their families torn 
apart. President Trump's decision to end DACA is an affront to 
everything our Nation stands for and only cements his legacy of 
shortsighted cruelty.
  House Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves for helping this 
administration push DREAMers one step closer to deportation. I will 
continue to fight for our values, our principles, because as Americans, 
we do not turn our backs on people who represent the best of our 
Nation.
  We must take the Dream Act up without delay.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Palmer). Members are reminded to refrain 
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), one of our leaders from the great State 
of California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for providing me 
this time. I rise in opposition to this rule, which prohibits a vote of 
the House of Representatives on an amendment that would prevent the 
Department of Justice from using its power and resources to supersede 
all State laws that have legalized the medical use of cannabis.
  For 3 years, States have been shielded from having the will of their 
voters and their people by a prohibition on the Department of Justice 
that would prevent the Department of Justice from thwarting the will of 
the people of the States by superceding those State laws when they have 
determined in the States that the medical use of marijuana should be 
permitted with their citizens.
  The Rules Committee has, thus, been basically--it will be changing 
the law of the land for 3 years where the 50 States have been 
permitted, if they so chose, to have the medical use of marijuana.
  After this vote, because of this rule, we have been prevented from 
again providing that prohibition that passed this House on a number of 
occasions that would prohibit the Department of Justice from 
superceding State law. In short, a vote for this rule is anti-States' 
rights. A vote for this rule is against permitting the people of your 
State to legalize the medical use of marijuana if the Federal 
Government, if the DOJ, decides.
  A vote for this rule will, thus, prevent medical use of cannabis by 
our doctors in States that would like to permit their people to benefit 
from illegal use of medical marijuana. Instead, those doctors now will, 
as they have been, prescribing opiates. That is right, opiates. Our 
people have ended up being prescribed opiates because marijuana has not 
been an option.
  It is a vote to cut off our veterans, and our seniors with arthritis, 
those people who have children who are plagued with seizures, all of 
these things now are permitted in the States where they have legalized 
the medical use of marijuana. These people are provided an avenue to at 
least try this as a method of dealing with these horrible maladies that 
they have to deal with in their lives, whether they are seizures, or 
whether they are people who have

[[Page 13455]]

arthritis, or whether they are our veterans who are coming back.
  We need to make sure that the billions of dollars that right now are 
being invested in medical marijuana businesses and clinics throughout 
our country, those billions of dollars will go to the benefit of our 
people. Instead, this rule prevents us from standing in the way of the 
Justice Department from obliterating those rights in the States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, so a vote against this rule is a vote 
to permit those States to make that decision. The rule, as it is now, 
prevents us from getting in the way of the Justice Department's 
obliteration of these rights.
  But one of the most important things, whether it is States' rights, 
or whether it is trying to listen to the seniors who are begging for us 
to give them some relief from some of their suffering and let them at 
least try this if the doctors so prescribe, but let us just remember 
this: that billions of dollars, $3 billion or $4 billion have been 
invested in this industry to provide honest businessmen and doctors the 
right to try medical marijuana on some of these maladies.
  Those $3 billion will immediately be transferred to the drug cartels 
in Mexico if this rule goes through. That is what it means. Now, I 
would suggest that whether it is opiates, or the drug lords down in 
Mexico, we need to side with the States' rights to make this 
determination and decide--and to make our determination to let the 
people decide in those States and let them have the choice there.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule for those reasons.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream 
Act, this bipartisan, bicameral legislation. We have thousands of young 
people who are Americans in every way except on paper.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Carbajal) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, in the past 5 years, the DACA program has 
given nearly 800,000 young men and women who came here as children, and 
have only known the United States as their home, a shot at the American 
Dream. It rightfully allowed them to come forward to live, work, and 
learn in the United States legally, and without fear of deportation.
  President Trump, this week, made his most heartless decision 
yesterday by cruelly rescinding DACA protection for these young 
DREAMers. These DREAMers now face the painful reality of a President 
betraying their trust, forcing them back into the shadows, and kicking 
them out of their homes.
  These kids put their faith in our government to protect them. They 
underwent rigorous background checks and paid the required fees, all 
for an opportunity to better themselves and their communities. And we 
are failing them.
  I share a similar story as many of these DREAMers. I emigrated to the 
United States with my parents as a 5-year-old boy from Mexico. This 
great country since has given me the opportunity to work hard, raise my 
two children, and serve my country in local government, the military, 
and here in Congress.
  Terminating DACA and stripping DREAMers of that same hope and 
opportunity is unconscionable and incompatible with our American 
values. We are a nation of immigrants and are made stronger by their 
contributions. Following the President's shameful decision this week, 
Congress must take action and pass the bipartisan Dream Act which would 
provide a permanent legislative solution to allow DREAMers to remain in 
the United States and continue to contribute to our Nation's future.
  They are our neighbors, our children's classmates, our coworkers. 
These are all hardworking and law-abiding individuals. We cannot afford 
to abandon DACA recipients who have lived in America all of their lives 
and contribute to this country in many ways.
  Ending this program undermines our economic growth and 
competitiveness, costing our economy $490 billion in lost GDP over the 
next decade, in addition to losing potential innovation and 
entrepreneurship.
  This House has already passed the DREAM Act in 2010, and a majority 
of Senators also supported this legislation. However, it fell short 
with a filibuster from then-Senator Jeff Sessions, the same Attorney 
General who announced the termination of DACA this week.
  This Congress must now ensure the well-being and future of these 
800,000 youth living and working in the United States. I urge my 
colleagues to stand up for DREAMers by bringing H.R. 3440, the 
bipartisan Dream Act, immediately to the floor for a vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that admonition. As my friends 
all know, the truth is, the vote in the Senate was a bipartisan vote 
against the consideration of that bill.
  We are going to find a bipartisan solution to this difficult problem 
and continuing to characterize this as a partisan issue does nothing 
but harm to our shared cause.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. 
Roby), one of the great leaders of the big freshman class in 2010.
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the Make America Secure and 
Prosperous Appropriations Act, and I encourage my colleagues to support 
this rule.
  As a pro-life conservative, I have long fought to make sure that 
taxpayers' dollars aren't being used to fund abortions or to fund 
abortion providers. Whether it is in the Appropriations Committee or 
here on the House floor, I have repeatedly made the cause for 
increasing protections for life under the law. Those fights haven't 
always been easy, and we haven't won every time. But Mr. Speaker, I am 
pleased that the appropriations bill before us does contain important 
pro-life provisions.
  First, the bill states: ``None of the funds made available by this 
act may be used to conduct or support research using human fetal tissue 
if such tissue is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion.''
  We all remember the 2015 scandal that revealed how Planned Parenthood 
officials were systematically altering abortion procedures in order to 
preserve the organs of babies to sell them to researchers. I said it at 
that time, and you don't have to be staunchly pro-life like me to be 
appalled by the thought of harvesting and trafficking aborted babies' 
body parts for profit.
  Our bill will prevent these atrocities from removing any incentives 
abortion providers might have to harvest and sell babies' organs. 
Instead, the bill directs agencies to find research using modern, more 
efficient alternatives to human fetal tissue.
  To be clear, I am a strong supporter of the National Institutes of 
Health. Their research is critical for development of lifesaving 
medical breakthroughs. However, I believe we must set a clear line of 
distinction between what is acceptable and what is not.
  Second, the bill expressly prohibits the Department of Health and 
Human Services from steering Title X public health funding to abortion 
providers. Of course, the Hyde amendment has long made it against the 
law to actually pay for abortions with taxpayer dollars. But the Obama 
administration had a bad habit of pushing hundreds of millions of 
dollars to Planned Parenthood in forms of grants and reimbursements for 
other services. This amounts

[[Page 13456]]

to a pipeline of funding propping up the Nation's largest abortion 
provider. It is an abuse of taxpayer money, and I am pleased that this 
bill cuts it off.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my chairman, Tom Cole, for including these 
important pro-life provisions in our base bill for the first time.

                              {time}  1315

  It represents real progress for the pro-life movement, and I will 
continue to fight to see it through the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I am unapologetically pro-life, and I believe that every 
human life is precious and our laws and policies should reflect that.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank our ranking member for 
yielding and, really, for her tireless advocacy on behalf of all 
Americans.
  I rise in strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill, the 
so-called Make America Secure and Prosperous Appropriations Act.
  Mr. Speaker, let's make one thing clear: this bill breaks 
Republicans' promise to get back to regular order, while blocking the 
majority of amendments to be considered on the floor. Also, as an 
African-American woman, I can't help but see how these cuts impact 
communities of color.
  It may be easy to think of budgets in terms of dollar signs and 
decimal points, but the disturbing truth is that the decisions we make 
here affect lives. If we are honest, many of these decisions in this 
bill disproportionately affect Black and Brown lives.
  For instance, the bill eliminates the Teen Pregnancy Prevention 
Initiative, the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Communities Health 
Program--just eliminates it--and Title X family planning, which many 
women of color and men rely on. It eliminates the Health and Career 
Opportunities Program, which provides training and grants for health 
careers for minority-serving institutions, and it eliminates the 
Minority AIDS Initiative, just to name a few. These are just under the 
Health and Human Services provision.
  This bill cuts $3 billion from the Pell Grant Surplus Program, $190 
million in 21st Century Community Schools, and eliminates the 
comprehensive literacy program. All of these are critical education 
programs that predominantly help people and students of color.
  I am also disappointed that this bill divests in our workforce, 
especially for communities of color, by eliminating the proven 
apprenticeship programs and cutting millions of our Nation's job 
training programs, including reintegration of ex-offenders--again, 
majority African-American and Latino ex-offenders--reentering into 
society. This budget cuts millions from that.
  It refuses to make in order Congressman Bobby Scott's amendment to 
strike the prohibition against using Federal funds for transportation 
to desegregate public schools. We are talking, still, about 
desegregating public schools in 2017.
  What is worse, I offered an amendment in Rules to combat these 
devastating cuts to communities of color, and Republicans refused to 
make them in order. I offered an amendment that would have prohibited 
funds from being used to implement the policy memo that Attorney 
General Sessions has presented that rolls back the failed War on Drugs 
and reinstates the harshest sentences for low-level drug offenses, the 
majority of whom--guess what--are African Americans.
  I offered another amendment that would have expressed the sense of 
Congress that race-conscious admissions policies, which are designed to 
achieve a more diverse student body, which allows for the use of race 
as one factor, only one factor, in admissions--these policies, we have 
to remember, are beneficial to all students. So the Department of 
Justice should not take action to limit these benefits.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 16 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California 
an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding another 
minute.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not be trying to limit students of color 
access to education, which the Justice Department is trying to do. 
Affirmative action is critical to mitigating discriminatory practices 
that prevent students of color from being admitted into the schools of 
their choice. Attorney General Sessions needs to back off of this. I 
tried to do this through an amendment to send that message. Of course, 
that amendment was not made in order.
  Congress can help, though, renew their faith in minority communities, 
and the minority communities can renew their faith in Congress by not 
accepting this Trump agenda and support clear policies that demonstrate 
to people of color that our lives also matter in America. 
Unfortunately, this spending bill does just the opposite.
  So I hope the Members will understand the message that we are sending 
to communities of color. I just mentioned a few of the cuts that have 
been put into this bill. I hope that we work to rectify the problems 
with it.
  It is past time to get back to regular order. It is past time to move 
each bill individually, also. It is past time to make strong 
investments in the American people, which include people of color. It 
is past time to help grow the economy and to create good-paying jobs 
for everyone.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and 
``no'' on the underlying bill. There is simply too much at stake.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the comments of my 
friend from California. She is absolutely right. When Republicans took 
control of this Chamber, they committed themselves to having a more 
open process. I was a part of that freshman class that came in to give 
Republicans a majority, and we have made good on that process. I want 
to talk about that just for a little bit.
  My friend from California serves on the Appropriations Committee, and 
I thank her for her service, Mr. Speaker. When you want to talk about 
an open process, that Appropriations Committee went through every 
single bill one subcommittee at a time, hour after hour, day after day, 
week after week, indeed, month after month. I am grateful to her for 
that service. The bill would not be as good as it is but for the men 
and women who serve on the Appropriations Committee.
  But I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons I was 
proud to be carrying the rule today is that we haven't gotten the 
appropriations process completed on time since Democratic leadership 
was able to achieve that back in 2009. They couldn't do it in their 
last year in power, 2010. In fact, they didn't do the appropriations 
bills at all. They punted it off to the next Republican Congress. But 
in 2009 they did.
  When I talk about that commitment to openness, let's remember, last 
time we had this shared success together and my friends on the other 
side of the aisle were leading, they allowed 17 amendments to the 
Financial Services bill. We are allowing twice that many today.
  When my friends were leading this institution the last time we 
completed this process, they allowed 13 amendments to the Interior 
bill. We are allowing six times that many.
  When my friends on the other side of the aisle were leading this 
institution, the last time we successfully completed this process, they 
allowed five amendments to the Labor-HHS. We are allowing 10 times that 
many.
  When my friends on the other side of the aisle were leading this 
institution, the last time we successfully completed this process on 
time, they allowed zero amendments to the Commerce-Justice-Science 
bill. We allow 49--infinitely more.
  My friends, can we always do better together? We can. I am grateful 
to my

[[Page 13457]]

friends for the hard work they put in showing up day after day to do 
that better. But this bill is better, and if we pass this rule, we will 
move to the debate on this bill, and we will complete this process on 
time in the most open fashion that any of my colleagues have seen in 
decades.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I am really very fond of my colleague over there, and I appreciate 
his wonderful sunshine attitude.
  The fact is we have never seen anything like what we are going 
through now. Twice, in just the last few months, one amendment by Ms. 
Lee, to finally get an AUMF so that we could authorize the wars that 
seem to be going on forever in the name of the United States of America 
was voted on in committee, passed in committee, and should have been in 
the bill. Lo and behold, it disappeared. I don't think we ever did 
anything like that to my knowledge, and if we did, shame on us.
  In this very bill today, there was, again, an amendment presented in 
committee for the DACA people to be able to get jobs while they are 
waiting with the Federal Government. I am paraphrasing that because I 
never saw it, but that is my understanding of what that did. Once 
again, it was presented at the committee, voted, passed, and should 
have been in this bill. But before it got to Rules, just like Ms. Lee's 
amendment, it just disappeared.
  How can you run the Government of the United States by saying that 
the people do their will through us? We are not sitting here to 
represent ourselves and do what we want to do and take one from column 
A and one from column B. We follow rules. That is what we are supposed 
to do. We have to answer for that.
  I want the people of the United States to know that what we are 
talking about here today is probably not going anywhere. As far as we 
know, it will not get past the Senate. Now, some miracle may happen. 
Who knows? Or maybe the whole thing will disappear--I don't know--with 
no explanation, by the way.
  But we haven't really done anything here yet except what I would call 
a crazy amalgamation of what the rules of the House wouldn't even come 
close to allowing us to do. Any body, any Congress, any House of 
Representatives, any legislature anywhere can do what they have to do 
to get their budget ready if they throw it all in one mix and let one 
committee, the Appropriations Committee, do it. The other committees 
had no right to talk about it.
  As I pointed out, again, the majority has really cut out the minority 
completely. Do you think we knew before it got to Rules that those two 
amendments that I talked about that were terribly important had 
disappeared? We didn't know that until it was given to us.
  Many times what we get at Rules are emergency meetings, which means 
one thing: no committee action. We have decided we would like to do 
this one this week, so let's call it an emergency.
  Enough. Enough already. This is the premier legislative body in the 
world. The hopes, the dreams, and the aspirations of all Americans lie 
in this House. We do or we do not do what is in the best interests of 
the people who sent us here. I promise you it is not in the best 
interests to cut out all of the population of the United States--about 
half, almost half. In fact, I believe numerically we got more votes 
than the other side--just cut us out of the process.
  I have already talked about no open rules. If you can't have an open 
rule whereby you can talk about amendments, there is nothing else for 
you to do. We are out of it because Democrats get very few amendments. 
I don't think the Rules Committee people get hardly any at all, and 
then we beg for some of the best ones we would like to be made into 
order--never happens.
  We are pretty discouraged. As a matter of fact, we were talking about 
maybe we should stage a coup, but I know that is illegal and would not 
work in the United States of America. So it was kind of a fleeting 
thought brought about by pure frustration.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Scott had a wonderful amendment. He is the ranking 
member on the Education and the Workforce Committee and is known 
throughout the United States for the work that he does, as is Barbara 
Lee, who is probably more well known than almost any other Member of 
this House. To be treated that way, to have to go back to her district 
and say, ``Well, we tried to do these amendments''--enough already.
  We can do it the right way. We used to. When I got here, it was 
entirely different. The bipartisanship was strong. We all liked each 
other. It was a pretty wonderful thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), whose amendments should have been allowed.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the number of amendments that were made in 
order by the Rules Committee, but I am appalled that the majority chose 
not to include one of my amendments, No. 63, to division F of H.R. 
3354, which would strike a prohibition against using Federal funds for 
the purpose of transportation needed to desegregate public schools. 
This language has found its way into every appropriations act since at 
least 1974.
  The language in sections 301 and 302 of division F of the bill really 
represent a relic of an ugly history when States and school districts 
across the Nation resisted meaningful integration of public education 
for decades after the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of 
Education. That resistance has worked.
  According to the GAO last year, our schools are more segregated by 
race and class today than they were in 1968. The persistence of these 
riders, if unchallenged, is morally reprehensible and has no place in 
2017. I stand with the Congressional Black Caucus in calling for a 
total removal of this offensive language in any fiscal 2018 
appropriations act.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have a long and proud history in this House, but it is sometimes 
tough to remember exactly how that history goes, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1330

  My friend from New York has her picture up on the wall in the Rules 
Committee room. If you haven't been up there, Mr. Speaker, you should 
go see it.
  My friend from New York is the first woman to have ever led the 
United States House of Representatives Rules Committee. She led it ably 
and proudly for the 4 years that the Democrats were in the majority the 
last decade.
  It is a hard job because, as the chairman of the Rules Committee or 
the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, you have to make decisions. When 
the bills come to you from the committees of jurisdiction--the 
authorizing committees--you often have to completely reorganize those 
bills. You have to meld those bills together. It is a powerful 
committee because it has a solemn responsibility.
  Yes, in the area of Rules Committee jurisdiction and the melding of 
all of those pieces of legislation is what amendments get added and 
what amendments get taken away.
  My friend from California (Ms. Lee), has an absolutely legitimate 
gripe, as does my friend from Virginia (Mr. Scott). Mr. Speaker, we all 
think our amendments are the greatest amendments to be known.
  Mr. Scott led, to his credit, with saying: I am glad so many of my 
amendments were made in order, but I am appalled my one amendment was 
kept out.
  We all want all of our amendments in. But to my friend from New 
York's comment that Democrats don't get a fair shake, I will remind 
you, Mr. Speaker, when my friend was leading the committee, the entire 
House of Representatives was offered 139 chances to change the 
appropriations bill in 2009, the last time we completed it.

[[Page 13458]]

  With Paul Ryan leading the institution, with my friend from Texas, 
Pete Sessions, leading the Rules Committee, we made 214 Democratic 
amendments in order. We have made more minority amendments in order in 
this process than my friends on the other side made in order for the 
entire House.
  Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to fear from openness. We have nothing 
to fear from a robust debate. I am so glad that we have had a chance to 
do that. But history should be reported accurately. The accuracy is: we 
can always do better. But we are doing better today than we were just a 
few short years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are really getting somewhere here. What my colleague 
failed to say is, as far as I know and I imagine as far as he knows, 
that no committee has ever sent a bill to the Rules Committee 
completely taking away amendments that had passed in that committee and 
were legitimately a part of that bill.
  In just the last, let's say, 2 or 3 months, two amendments 
legitimately passed by Democratic members in the proper committee 
disappeared between that committee and the Rules Committee. If that is 
not a violation of rules, I don't know how in the world you would ever 
describe it.
  Sure, we had a lot of open rules--I mentioned Paul Ryan has never had 
one--which gave everybody an opportunity to do an amendment, all 435 
us, if we chose to, but we don't. When you talk about something coming 
to us from a committee, large bills sometimes don't come to us from 
committees, but oftentimes they are written somewhere--we are not sure 
where--but they come to us in an emergency procedure because they have 
to get to the floor that week.
  I am not just talking about improving. I am talking about following 
the rules of procedure laid down by history, by circumstance, and by 
geniuses. I am talking about not appropriating those in ways that say: 
We just don't want that amendment on the list. Pretend it never 
happened. Throw it in the garbage and maybe nobody will remember it.
  We remember. We think that some amendments are a few things that 
would really move the country forward, and we don't have a chance to 
get them put in place simply because we are the minority. That is 
absolutely wrong. It is undemocratic. It is hurtful to the institution 
and hurtful to America.
  We can do better. You and I should pledge right now to work on that. 
I am game if you are.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. I will say to my friend that I have no better days than 
the days that you and I are working together. I absolutely look forward 
to that.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Reclaiming my time, I don't want to see that anymore. 
It is an embarrassment when I have to even get up to do my half of the 
rule and talk about what awful things have happened to us. There are 
more things that I need to talk about than that.
  I think we should cut out the games and the cuteness and all the rest 
of it and do our job.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Richmond).
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today, as a Member of the 
United States House of Representatives, embarrassed. At the same time 
that I am embarrassed, I am also dumbfounded.
  I know that there are people at home that are thinking: Why would a 
Member of Congress, the most prestigious body in the world, be 
embarrassed, dumbfounded?
  Well, I was always taught that if you show me your budget or if you 
show me your legislation, then you are showing me your values.
  Representative Scott, my good friend from Virginia, had an amendment 
that would strike the prohibition that Federal funds could be used to 
desegregate our public schools in this country.
  If you look at the GAO study, there are more schools now that are 
desegregated than in 1968. We can talk eloquently about the history of 
the House and what the Democrats did when they were in control and how 
many amendments were made in order. I am not talking about how many 
amendments. I am talking about a specific amendment, a specific issue.
  We are perpetuating segregation in the United States of America in 
our public schools. We are not allowing the States to use funds to 
promote integration and diversity among our schools.
  My State--and I will own this--is still the only State under a 
Federal desegregation order, because we have not completely 
desegregated our schools. We still have that ugly history.
  With everything going on in this country and school kids probably 
huddled around a TV right now watching this institution work and they 
are saying: These are our leaders? We elected them to run this country? 
Why wouldn't they want me to go to school with other kids of other 
races?
  That is why I am embarrassed. It is wrong. I don't think we should 
just hide behind procedure, but address the issue and the moral failure 
and the message that we are sending to our children.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from New York that 
I do not have other speakers remaining, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  These bills don't have the support they need to pass the Senate. It 
takes 60 votes to even bring them to the floor. That means that this 
entire exercise this week has been an exercise in futility. All the 
while, the clock is ticking and Congress has so much to do, as I have 
elaborated several times this afternoon, over the next 9 legislative 
days.
  If this process has been good for anything, it is revealing just how 
broken the legislative process has become under the majority's rule.
  Legislation regularly comes to the House floor without any committee 
consideration. It just goes to rules. The majority even rammed through 
a healthcare repeal bill not long ago--I am sure everybody remembers 
that--that would impact one-sixth of our entire economy without first--
what we need to do again in regular order--getting a score from the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
  They are very important. They tell us what cost and what impact it 
would have on the budget and on the country. So that means we had no 
idea of the impact of that bill on our markets or what it would cost 
when voting for it.
  The minority is routinely shut out of the process, often unable to 
get so much as a vote on an amendment on the House floor. When Speaker 
Ryan assumed the gavel, he promised to return to regular order and an 
open process. We have been waiting a mighty long time. Every time we 
offered an amendment to the bill before us in the Rules Committee, we 
asked that the rule be open; again, giving all Members a chance to 
affect that bill. Unanimously, we are voted against and we lose all 
those votes 9-4. That means that both sides will not be able to affect 
that bill and it means that regular order is as far away as it ever 
was.
  Here we are, less than a month away from the end of the fiscal year, 
and we haven't passed a budget resolution through the House. We were 
supposed to have a budget through the House, the Senate, and the 
conference--the conference is necessary to reconcile the House and 
Senate bills--by April 15.
  We blew through the debt limit in March and still have not dealt with 
that. We have yet to have a single open rule in the Rules Committee 
under the Speaker's leadership. Believe me, I am sure that an awful lot 
of Members of this House have something to say about what is going on.
  It is no wonder that, according to the latest figures from Gallup, 79 
percent of the public disapproves of how Congress is doing its job. No 
wonder.
  CBS News highlighted that it costs the taxpayers an estimated $24 
million

[[Page 13459]]

a week to operate the House of Representatives. They know that they are 
not getting their money's worth.
  They needed 60 votes to repeal and replace healthcare, when there was 
no replacement in sight. I am not sure how to describe that as a 
legislative proposal, but what it sounds like to me is a hoax. We are 
going to fool you that we have really got a replacement here.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, 
and the bill. I hope that my good colleague, Mr. Woodall, and I can 
help fix this place to do a little better.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't dispute the polling numbers my friend from New 
York cites. In fact, I am as saddened by those numbers, as she is. But 
I also feel culpable; not culpable because of the work we are doing 
today--I think we should be proud--I feel culpable because we all find 
ourselves in conversations with one another where, instead of building 
the institution up, we run the institution down.
  What my friend from New York said about Ms. Lee's amendment being 
changed in the Rules Committee, she is absolutely right, the amendment 
was changed. But, Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: it wasn't changed in 
some backroom deal with smoke-filled air where no one knows what is 
happening and can't read the bill. It was noticed. There was an entire 
paragraph dedicated to saying: Hey, this is unusual. This doesn't 
happen that often. We want all the cards on the table so everybody 
knows. Just understand we made this change this time around.
  Mr. Speaker, getting the work done in this institution is hard. It 
leads to conflicting goals. You heard folks from the other side of the 
aisle say: We are not spending nearly enough time on this bill. We need 
to make even more amendments in order. And you heard folks on other 
side of the aisle say: This whole bill is an exercise in futility. I 
don't know why we are wasting even one moment on it.
  It is tough to satisfy both of those concerns simultaneously.
  We have got this rule book called the United State Constitution. It 
doesn't ask a whole lot of the United States Congress. It does ask us 
to appropriate the money. Under the leadership of both parties, Mr. 
Speaker, this House has failed to get that done on time year after 
year.
  This year, the bipartisan Appropriations Committee in subcommittee, 
in full committee, worked tirelessly, as I said, not for days, not for 
weeks, but for months. One bill at a time. In fact, one line at a time.
  That product was brought together by the Rules Committee last month, 
August 16, Mr. Speaker. That amalgamation of bills was posted on the 
internet for all the world to see and read. Every Member of this 
Congress had a chance to bring their ideas about how to make it better.
  The Rules Committee got together, looked at those ideas, made more of 
those ideas in order for debate than we have seen in decades for bills 
that get completed on time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. The Rules Committee did not get together. The majority 
of the Rules Committee got together. We had no action in that game 
whatsoever.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am always compelled to yield to my friend 
from New York because I am so fond of her and because her leadership 
has meant so much to this institution.
  My friend has served on the Rules Committee for even longer than I 
have, and so my friend understands how the Rules Committee works even 
better than I do.
  I don't want to engage my friend in a colloquy, at least not in my 
closing statement. We should have this conversation on day 1. Please, 
my friend from New York, give us one more word.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, just to speak on accuracy: don't say the 
Rules Committee got together and went over those. Say the Rules 
Committee majority got together and went over those. You know, that is 
all I ask.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend's constructive counsel, 
but I know for a fact that her calendar looks just like mine does, and 
that means that we are going in in the early afternoon and we are not 
getting out till late at night.
  Why? Because you and I are sitting just three Members apart listening 
to Member after Member make their case, and in the spirit of accuracy, 
don't let it be said that our Members coming and testifying doesn't 
make a difference because it does. You and I both believe that. We know 
it to be true, and it is important that it be true.
  Those Members come and they testify, they make their case, and then 
we vote up or down on those amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, can we do better? We can. And I will work with 
absolutely any colleague of any political stripe of any region to do 
better at any time, but let's do recognize that we made a commitment to 
ourselves to get this job done for the first time in a decade.
  By coming to the floor right now, Mr. Speaker, quarter of 2 on a 
Thursday afternoon passing this rule, we are going to get this job done 
together for the first time in a long time.
  Will we wake up tomorrow and try to do better? You know that we will. 
Should we take a moment to thank the folks who helped us get here? You 
know that we should.
  Mr. Speaker, you are surrounded left and right by Members of the 
House team. The parliamentarians worked tirelessly to approve the 
amendments, to make sure they are all written and drafted properly. I 
want to thank the parliamentarian team for the work that they do.
  Mr. Speaker, we kick CBO a lot in this place because we don't like 
their score one day, we like it the next. CBO has to go through these 
amendments, score these amendments. I am grateful to them for the work 
they did to make this possible.
  Legislative counsel goes through, with each Member of Congress, 
making sure that every ``i'' is in the right place, every ``t'' is 
crossed. It is not a small task. It is a gargantuan task, and they do 
it on these big bills day in and day out. I am grateful for that.
  You are starting to see some of the appropriators come down, Mr. 
Speaker. Long after my friend from New York and I have left this 
Chamber, the appropriations team is going to be here until the wee 
hours of the morning once again going through each and every line and 
each and every amendment.
  I think about what my friend from Louisiana said about the school 
children who are turning on C-SPAN and watching this process. I don't 
know what they think goes into making this happen, but what I know goes 
into making this happen is a lot of hard work, staff work, Member work, 
a lot of big hearts, and a lot of big brains sitting down together 
hashing through these issues.
  This rule is worth supporting. The underlying legislation is worth 
supporting, Mr. Speaker, and I ask all of my colleagues to do exactly 
that.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 504 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment 
     of status of certain individuals who are long-term United 
     States residents and who entered the United States as 
     children and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for

[[Page 13460]]

     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3440.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5-minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 186, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 457]

                               YEAS--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--186

     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
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     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
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky

[[Page 13461]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bridenstine
     Costa
     Crist
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     DeGette
     DeSantis
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Garrett
     LaMalfa
     Lowenthal
     Posey
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Scalise
     Tsongas
     Wagner
     Wasserman Schultz
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1412

  Ms. PINGREE changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ROKITA and Mrs. HARTZLER changed their 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. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 190, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 458]

                               YEAS--222

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--190

     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
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     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
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bridenstine
     Costa
     Crist
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     DeGette
     DeSantis
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Garrett
     LaMalfa
     Meadows
     Pelosi
     Posey
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Scalise
     Tsongas
     Wagner
     Wasserman Schultz
     Webster (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1422

  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.

                          ____________________