[Pages H2671-H2684]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1732, REGULATORY INTEGRITY
PROTECTION ACT OF 2015; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE
REPORT ON S. CON. RES. 11, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL
YEAR 2016; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 43, DISAPPROVAL
OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH NON-DISCRIMINATION
AMENDMENT ACT OF 2014

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 231 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 231

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. 1732) to preserve existing rights and
responsibilities

[[Page H2672]]

with respect to waters of the United States, 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
Transportation and Infrastructure. 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 Transportation and
Infrastructure 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
114-13 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 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. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider the conference report to accompany the
concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 11) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2016 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025. All points of
order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without
intervening motion except one hour of debate.
Sec. 3. Section 604(g) of the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act shall not apply in the case of the joint resolution
(H.J. Res. 43) disapproving the action of the District of
Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-
Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014.
Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 43) disapproving the action of the District of Columbia
Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-
Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014. All points of order
against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The
joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived.
The joint resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or
their respective designees. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit (if otherwise in order).

point of order

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against
House Resolution 231 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all
points of order against consideration of H.R. 1732, which includes a
waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a
violation of section 426(a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New Jersey makes a
point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the
gentlewoman from New Jersey and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate,
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means
of disposing of the point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Jersey.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, when I was sworn into this
Congress, there was quite a bit of fanfare about how many women now
serve in this body. But even with all of these women, this body is
still 80 percent male.
Men are running the show, and the sideshow that they have used to
distract us from the real reasons each of us was elected has been a
persistent, absurd, arrogant, and ignorant effort to impede upon a
woman's right to make her own choices about her health.
We have wasted--absolutely wasted--taxpayer dollars and valuable time
here on the floor of the House again and again and again trying to
legislate away something our highest Court confirmed years ago.
We could have spent that time talking about the recent rash of police
brutality cases that have long plagued communities of color, an issue
that has now caught fire in the streets of Baltimore, just a few miles
north of us.
We could have discussed the lack of job training programs preparing
workers for careers in technology and health, the fastest-growing
professions in an economy doing nothing for the long-term unemployed.
We could have used this time to work on protecting our seniors by
expanding Social Security, keeping even more older Americans out of
poverty.
We could have debated any issue that would offer better opportunities
for our constituents, which is what each of us was elected to do.
Instead, we put Members of Congress one place we have no right to be;
and that is, in a woman's uterus. Women are the only ones who have the
right to make the inherently private health choices that they are faced
with.
Mr. Speaker, when the legislation we are preparing to debate came
before the House Oversight Committee, I was particularly disturbed. My
colleagues on the other side of the aisle gave us a slew of well-
meaning arguments about why we so desperately needed to violate the
self-rule of the District of Columbia.
One of these men, a former minister, explained employers, who are
moved by faith to judge and persecute their employees, should be free
to do so. He went on to say that employers should have every right to
freely exercise their faiths and that the District's effort to ensure
employees don't lose their jobs because of in vitro fertilization or
birth control or any other reproductive healthcare choice was part of a
``continued attack'' on religion.
One thing that is particularly wonderful about this great Nation is
that we offer everyone a right to have an opinion.
As a mother, a grandmother, and a devoted woman of God, I couldn't
help wondering how men, who are so very adamant about forcing mothers
to have these babies, could refuse to ensure they have access to care.
The same folks calling for bills like this one have called for cuts
to programs across the spectrum that will give their children and their
mothers access to education, access to healthy meals, and all kinds of
tools to assure they are not stuck in the cycle of poverty. So once
they have funneled women into the path that brings a child into the
world, my colleagues would prefer to say, ``God bless you,'' and walk
away.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation this rule would force us to consider is
absolutely wrong. It violates the will of the District's voters; it
violates the privacy and the rights of women; and most relevant to this
point of order, it violates rules of this body for interference in
State and local governments.
It is now my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), someone who
recognizes just how awful this legislation is and the only Member whose
constituents will have to deal with the outcome.
Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend from New Jersey for her
extraordinary remarks and for her generosity in yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this rule has the high stink of both unfairness and
discrimination. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to
overturn a valid local District of Columbia law but denied D.C.'s
locally elected officials even the courtesy of defending that law,
which is aimed at keeping employers from discriminating against women
and men for their private reproductive health decisions, the most
personal decisions Americans make off the job.

[[Page H2673]]

Of critical importance, the D.C. local law requires that all
employees carry out the mission of the organization or business,
whatever its mission is. The disapproval resolution was only added to
the Rules Committee agenda yesterday, literally at the same time that
the committee began its meeting. And no member of the majority showed
up at the hearing to defend the disapproval resolution until I noted
this unprecedented absence. The committee then hurriedly summoned the
subcommittee chair, who spoke without any prepared testimony.
No wonder--how can any American defend an employer who imposes his
religion or personal philosophical beliefs on an employee's private
reproductive matters by sanctioning the employee because the employer
disagrees, for example, with an employee's use of in vitro
fertilization to become pregnant or of birth control for family
planning?
The employer has no right to even know about such private matters.
But if he learns of an employee's reproductive preferences, the D.C.
law requires that he must not use this private matter to discriminate
on the job.
Not surprisingly, we do not expect this disapproval resolution to be
considered on the House floor--in the light of day--until late tonight,
for fear that the American people will watch Congress sanction, for the
first time ever, discrimination against women and men for their
reproductive health decisions and see Republicans violate their own
professed mantra for local control of local affairs by overturning the
law of a local government for the first time in a quarter of a century.
I thank my good friend for yielding.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the point
of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the vice chairwoman of the
Rules Committee in whose jurisdiction the unfunded mandate point of
order resides.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding
time.
The question before the House is, Should the House now consider H.
Res. 231? While the resolution waives all points of order against
consideration of today's measures----

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery
in contravention of the law and the rules of the House.
The Sergeant at Arms will remove those persons responsible for the
disturbance and restore order to the gallery.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina may proceed.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, while the resolution waives all points of
order against consideration of today's measures, the Committee on Rules
is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. This
is a dilatory tactic.
These measures will protect our farmers, ranchers, and business
community from a massive Federal overreach being perpetrated by the
EPA, approve our FY16 budget that puts us on a path to rein in reckless
spending, reform entitlement programs, and protect the religious rights
of D.C. employers.
As a mother, a woman, and an individual of prayer, I am very glad
that we are here today defending life and our Constitution, consistent
with our congressional prerogatives.
Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle act shocked that we are
debating this issue. But what is truly shocking is that we need to be
here today at all, discussing whether to grant employers in the
District of Columbia the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's
First Amendment, but we are.
I would further like to point out to our colleagues across the aisle
some of the words of the second paragraph of the Declaration of
Independence:
``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted.''

{time} 1245

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about discrimination against people
here. We are discussing the protection of innocent life. As Members of
Congress, we have a heightened responsibility to protect the rights of
D.C. residents because the Constitution in article I, section 8 gives
the Congress explicit jurisdiction over the country's seat of
government.
It is under that authority that we consider H.J. Res. 43, a
resolution to disapprove the action of the Council of the District of
Columbia in approving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act of
2014, or RHNDA.
Our country holds as its most fundamental freedom the right to
practice freely one's religion and associate with others who hold the
same beliefs. It is unthinkable that we could allow the leadership--if
you want to call it leadership, the people in control of Our Capital
City--to infringe on that right for the millions of Americans who live
or work inside its borders. But that is what RHNDA does.
It tells churches, religious schools, and advocacy organizations that
they may not make employment decisions based on their own core
principles, including the respect for precious unborn life, a principle
that is central to many of these groups' entire belief system.
Cloaked in language purporting to prohibit discrimination and promote
tolerance, this law targets these organizations and tramples their
rights to exercise their views on the respect for life.
In truth, Mr. Speaker, this law discriminates against and promotes
intolerance of anyone who disagrees with the world view of the majority
of the D.C. City Council. It is not discriminatory for a church or
religious school to believe and preach that life begins at conception.
It is not discriminatory to practice these deeply held beliefs; that
is, unless you are in the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, this law may force religious organizations to relocate
outside the District of Columbia in order to protect their rights.
Given the clear hostility the City Council has shown them and what we
have heard on this floor today, that may, in fact, be the ultimate
goal.
When we take our oath of office as Representatives, we promise to
protect and defend the Constitution. That includes protection of
religious freedoms, and it is why I support H.J. Res. 43 which
disapproves RHNDA.
In order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for
the day, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of
consideration of the resolution.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240,
nays 174, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 179]

YEAS--240

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie

[[Page H2674]]

Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--174

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--17

Black
Cardenas
Clay
Fudge
Gohmert
Hudson
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Kildee
Langevin
Lewis
Payne
Quigley
Roskam
Rush
Shuster
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1312

Ms. DeGETTE, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Ms. WILSON of Florida changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. PALAZZO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

{time} 1315

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Westmoreland). 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, this is House Resolution 231 down here
today. I have got a copy right here. It has been so long since the
Reading Clerk read this to us that folks may have forgotten. This
represents a lot of what I would argue is best about this institution,
and I want to take a little pride and tell folks about what the Rules
Committee has been working on.
It makes in order H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act
of 2015.
As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the EPA and others are hard at work, I
would argue, at trying to exert brand-new jurisdiction over waters
currently regulated by the State of Georgia. It is the largest power
grab over water I have seen in my lifetime and, I would argue, in the
history of the Republic. This bill aims to roll that back. Yet, as the
committee reported it, there are always other folks who have ideas, so
what the Rules Committee did is to make in order every single
Democratic amendment that was offered to this resolution.
If we vote to support this rule today, we will consider this bill.
The House will work its will, and it will work its will by considering
every single Democratic alternative that was offered. I think that is
an important step. It is going to make the legislation better when we
move it to final passage, and I am glad this rule provides for that. I
hope folks will support that underlying rule.
Passing this rule today will make in order S. Con. Res. 11, the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016.
Mr. Speaker, I almost feel like I need to explain what a concurrent
resolution on the budget is because, if you are like more than half the
Members of this House, you have never seen one before. More than half
the Members of this House have never served when the United States of
America got together and passed a budget. It is outrageous, Mr.
Speaker. That was yesterday that it was outrageous, and today is about
the opportunity to do this.
The House worked its will on the budget. You will remember, Mr.
Speaker, the Rules Committee made in order every single budget
alternative that was offered, both Republican and Democrat. The House
debated. The House worked its will. We passed a product. We worked that
product out with the Senate. If we pass this rule today, Mr. Speaker,
it will be in order to debate the first concurrent budget in my
congressional tenure--these two terms--and the first balanced budget
since 2001, but only if we make this rule in order.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, is H.J. Res. 43, disapproving the action of the
District of Columbia Council, that this rule will make in order.
Now, for folks who don't follow that, we don't see it that often. In
fact, since Republicans first took over Congress for the first time in
40 years back in 1994, we have never seen one of these resolutions
before. It is the first one, but it comes from the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution delegates to
Congress all of the authority for governing the District of Columbia.
It is article I, section 8. All of the authority for the governing of
the District of Columbia lies in this body.
In 1974, we passed the D.C. Home Rule Act, which allowed for the
coordinated governance of D.C., and it included this resolution of
disapproval allowing Congress to come back and reject actions that the
District of Columbia has taken. Again, folks will not have seen this
unless you were in Congress in 1991 when Democrats were controlling the
House and Democrats were controlling the Senate. Unless you were here
then, you would not have seen one of these resolutions passed. It was
last passed in 1991 with folks rejecting the deliberations of the D.C.
Council.

[[Page H2675]]

This rule makes in order the consideration of that joint resolution
again today. It is exactly what was contemplated when, for the very
first time in the history of the United States of America, the Congress
delegated some of the power of controlling the District of Columbia to
the city itself. In the language that designated that authority to
begin with, it provided for this resolution of disapproval. For the
first time in almost 20 years, this House is considering one of those
today.

That is what you get in this rule, Mr. Speaker. It provides for
debate on all of the Democratic amendments offered; it provides for
debate on those bills that are exactly as the D.C. Home Rule Act
anticipated; and it provides for debate on the first conferenced budget
that most Members in this House have ever seen. It is a shame this is
the first time we have had an opportunity to do it, but, golly, is it
exciting that we have an opportunity to do that together today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule,
which provides for the consideration of three unrelated pieces of
legislation: a Republican budget conference report, an anti-Clean Water
Act bill, and a resolution to interfere with the decisions of the
District of Columbia's city council and a bill that limits women's
reproductive health rights.
The budget conference report was filed only minutes before the Rules
Committee met yesterday, only minutes before the committee formally
convened. It was a 100-page conference report that was negotiated in
secret by the Republicans, and it was brought before the Rules
Committee before anybody had a chance to read it. What ever happened to
``read the bill''? Whatever happened to the pledge for a more open and
transparent Congress? It would be nice if all Members, Democrats and
Republicans, had the opportunity to carefully review the legislation
they are asked to vote on, especially when it comes to a document that
provides a blueprint for funding the Federal Government and reforming
our social safety net programs.
If that weren't bad enough, the majority claims that this budget
conference report is something to be proud of. Mr. Speaker, this is
nothing to be proud of. It is shameful. It is shameful in terms of
process, and it is shameful in terms of substance. Budgets should be
moral documents. They provide our constituents with a clear picture of
who we are, of what our priorities are, how we should govern, where we
want this country to go. They represent our values, but the values that
this budget represents, I would argue, are not the values of working
families in this country, and they are not the values of those who are
struggling to get out of poverty. They may be the values of corporate
special interests or of very wealthy individuals in this country, but
they don't represent the values of the majority of people in this
country.
This partisan Republican budget takes us in the wrong direction. It
cuts $5.5 trillion in funding through a series of unrealistic spending
cuts, math magic, and gimmicks. It asks nothing of the wealthiest among
us, proposes no elimination of special interest tax breaks, and
continues us down the terribly misguided path created by sequestration.
In fact, to be honest, Mr. Speaker, this budget basically provides us a
pathway to do not a lot of anything, really.
We already know that, unless we deal with the issue of sequestration,
our colleagues in the United States Senate are going to block all of
the appropriations bills. We know that the President will not sign any
appropriations bills that lock us into sequestration. Maybe what we
should be doing, rather than wasting time, is fixing sequestration, but
my Republican friends have been very good at wasting time and at
wasting taxpayer dollars, and that is what we are doing today.
The Republican budget conference report proposes to end the Medicare
guarantee and turn it into a voucher program. It turns Medicaid and
CHIP into a capped block grant. It eliminates $85 million from Pell
grants. It cuts investments in research and in infrastructure. The
budget resolution builds upon the draconian $125 billion cut to SNAP,
which is the Nation's premier antihunger program that was contained in
the House budget. To achieve a cut of that magnitude by block granting
the program and capping its allotment means that States will be forced
to cut benefits or kick eligible individuals and families off the
program.
Boy, isn't that a nice value that we are promoting here--throwing
poor people off of a food benefit. Just because the conference report
is vague on some details or leaves out a few key buzzwords doesn't mean
that it protects programs for the poor. Unfortunately, this Republican
Congress has shown time and time again that it plans to balance the
budgets on the backs of the poor and working class Americans.
The conference report also includes reconciliation instructions to
repeal the Affordable Care Act without proposing an alternative to
ensure the 16 million people who have gained health coverage under the
ACA are able to remain insured. That is right. If the Republicans get
their way, being a woman is, once again, a preexisting condition, and
preventative care goes away. Simply, the progress that we have made
over the past few years disappears. Senior citizens will see their
prescription costs increase. In budgetary terms, we will be worse off
when repealing the Affordable Care Act because it will result in higher
medical costs and sicker people. It is just that simple. It is a bad
idea, but it is a good sound bite, I guess.
Despite claims by my friends in the majority, this budget does not
balance. It nowhere near balances. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is filled
with gimmicks and contains the very dangerous addiction Congress has
for deficit spending by further increasing funds for the overseas
contingency operations account, or OCO. Not only does this budget
increase the OCO's war spending, but it also facilitates using the OCO
as a slush fund for items that should be funded in the base budget.
Everything in OCO is on the national credit card. None of it is an
emergency. It is deficit spending, pure and simple.
I commend my colleagues on the Republican side who are raising a
little hell about this kind of budget gimmick that is going on. This is
outrageous. While we continue to pump up the deficit and to pump up the
OCO account, we watch our roads and our bridges and our water systems
crumble for lack of funding, and we starve our education and our job
training and innovation programs.
Mr. Speaker, those are just a few of the outrages contained in the
Republican budget. We are still in the process of combing through the
100-page document that was just filed yesterday, and I am sure there
will be additional issues that we will want to raise.
In addition to this awful budget, today's rule also provides for the
consideration of H.R. 1732 and H.J. Res. 43.
H.R. 1732, Mr. Speaker, would basically force the EPA and the Army
Corps of Engineers to withdraw its proposed rule on Clean Water Act
jurisdictional boundaries and start the rulemaking process over again
from scratch. Mr. Speaker, the current rulemaking process should be
allowed to move forward. The EPA and the Army Corps have painstakingly
engaged in an extensive stakeholder outreach and public comment
process. They are doing their jobs. The rule is grounded in sound
science. H.R. 1732 would cause further confusion, and it would end up
delaying essential clean water projects for future generations, not to
mention, Mr. Speaker, that a rider in the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill, which is being considered by this House today,
would prohibit the Army Corps from spending any money to propose a new
rule.
In one bill, my friends basically null and void what the bill we are
going to debate today is intended to do. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am
disappointed in this partisan approach that the majority has taken with
regard to clean water legislation and environmental protection
legislation.
There is another bill in here, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to say a
few

[[Page H2676]]

words about that. It is H.J. Res. 43, disapproving the District of
Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-
Discrimination Amendment Act.
Mr. Speaker, the D.C. Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act is
scheduled to take effect this Saturday. The law passed unanimously by
the D.C. City Council. This would protect employees who work in the
District of Columbia from workplace discrimination based on their
personal reproductive healthcare decisions. The bill is about basic
fairness. People should be judged at work based on their performances,
not on their personal, private reproductive healthcare decisions. But
House Republicans cannot pass up an opportunity to meddle in personal
reproductive decisions or in D.C.'s right to govern itself.
The resolution before us, H.J. Res. 43, would prevent the law from
going into effect. In doing so, it would allow an employer to fire a
woman because she used in vitro fertilization or to demote an employee
because she used birth control pills or because her husband used
condoms or to pay an employee less because his daughter became pregnant
out of wedlock.

{time} 1330

In other words, we are a few months into 2015, a year-and-a-half away
from the Presidential election, and the Republicans are already
restarting their war on women. Sometimes it feels like this Congress is
stuck in the mindset of 1815 rather than 2015.
Let my colleagues make no mistake about this: H.J. Res. 43 is about
legitimizing discrimination. Enough already.
Mr. Speaker, earlier the gentlelady from North Carolina, my colleague
on the Committee on Rules, came on the floor and said we in Congress
need to protect the citizens of D.C. Protect them from what? From their
own democratic process? Give me a break. Let me tell my Republican
colleagues, the citizens of D.C. don't want your protection or your
interference. They want this Congress to respect them and their
decisions.
Mr. Speaker, this is another lousy piece of legislation that really
shouldn't be here on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the
Record that the House should focus on America's priorities instead of
resuming the attack on women's health.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California
(Mrs. Torres) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my
statement for the Record that the House should focus on the real
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Michigan
(Mrs. Dingell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my
statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real
priorities of working men and women instead of another attack on
women's health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California
(Ms. Lee) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement
in the Record that the House should focus on real priorities like
eliminating poverty instead of another attack on women's health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida
(Ms. Wilson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. WILSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert
my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real
priorities of America, like jobs, jobs, jobs, instead of another attack
on women's health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California
(Ms. Bass) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement
in the Record that the House should focus on the real priorities of the
country instead of another attack on women's health care in Washington,
D.C.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida
(Ms. Frankel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
insert my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the
real priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's
health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Roybal-Allard) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my
statement in the Record that the House should focus on jobs and the
economy, the real priorities of the American people, instead of another
attack on women's health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Crowley) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my
statement into the Record that the House should focus on the real
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health
care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama
(Ms. Sewell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert
my statement into the Record that the House should focus on the real
priorities of the American people instead of another attack on women's
health.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my
statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real
priorities of the American people--job creation and getting a stronger
economy--rather than attacking women's health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Lujan Grisham) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request,

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will first make an announcement.
The Chair would advise Members that although a unanimous consent
request to insert remarks in debate may comprise a simple, declarative
statement of the Member's attitude toward the pending measure,
embellishments beyond that standard constitute debate and can become an
imposition on the time of the Member who has yielded for that purpose.
The Chair will entertain as many requests to insert as may be
necessary to

[[Page H2677]]

accommodate Members, but the Chair also must ask Members to cooperate
by confining such remarks to the proper form.
The gentlewoman from New Mexico is recognized.
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record that the House
should focus on the real priorities of Americans instead of another
attack on women's health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Maxine Waters) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to insert my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the
real priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's
health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey
(Mrs. Watson Coleman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert
my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health
care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to insert my statement into the Record, and the House should be
focusing on the real priorities facing Americans: the economy. They
should not be rolling back women's access to health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman will be charged.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my
statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health
care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my
statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health
care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Judy Chu) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
insert my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the
real priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's
health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Lawrence) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my
statement into the Record that the House should focus on real
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health
care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Castor) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert
my statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real
priorities of America instead of another attack on women's health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member on the Committee on Rules, for the
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my
statement in the Record that the House should focus on real priorities
of Americans instead of another attack on women's health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Van Hollen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my
statement in the Record that the House should focus on the real
priorities of Americans instead of another attack on women's health
care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Hahn) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement
in the Record that the House should focus on the real priorities of
Americans instead of another attack on women's health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Democratic leader, for the purpose of
a unanimous consent request.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the
House should focus on the real priorities of Americans instead of
another attack on women's health care.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this point I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from
Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), one of our young leaders in this Chamber.
Mrs. WAGNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for all the work
that he has done to protect life and religious freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong disapproval of
religious discrimination in the District of Columbia's local
government.
Mr. Speaker, one of the founding principles of our great country is
the freedom to worship without government interference. Our forefathers
fought and died for that liberty, and I stand before you today to make
sure they did not die in vain.
The law passed by the D.C. City Council attacks the core religious
beliefs of faith-based organizations, schools, and pro-life advocates.
Under this law, these groups could be forced to pay for health services
that are in direct conflict with their fundamental religious beliefs.
Under this law, a D.C.-based nonprofit whose sole mission is to end
abortion could be forced to pay for abortion services. This is not only
unacceptable but stands in direct opposition to the Constitution and
Federal law.
This is why I am proud to cosponsor Congresswoman Black's resolution
that formally expresses Congress' disapproval of the D.C. pro-abortion
law. I

[[Page H2678]]

stand here to defend the rights of religious institutions and pro-life
companies to honor their faith and respect the sanctity of life.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that life is our greatest gift. I admire the
work that many of these faith-based and pro-life organizations do to
change the hearts and the minds in this abortion debate, and I will not
stand idly by to watch their religious freedoms trampled. I urge my
colleagues to do the same and vote in favor of this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say for the record, I strongly disagree with
what the gentlelady just said, and we will have some more time to talk
about that, but I want to go to kind of a different subject right now.
For those who are watching these proceedings, it may be a little
confusing because we are jumping around to different subjects, but my
Republican friends have this new kind of ploy to limit and stifle
debate, and that is pack as many bills into one rule at a time so that
you can limit the amount of participation and debate, which, again,
runs contrary to what the people's House is supposed to be about.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask at the end of all this that we defeat the
previous question, and then I will offer an amendment to the rule that
would grant the House an opportunity to consider a budget that rejects
the mindless sequester cuts in critical services and instead adopt a
plan to put the budget on a fiscally responsible path by making
responsible, targeted spending cuts, and by closing special interest
tax breaks that benefit only the very wealthiest. It would make
necessary investments to boost the economy and create jobs, protect
national security, and preserve the Medicare guarantee.
To discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, primarily because of
the gimmickry and the coldheartedness of the conference budget. It is
not just myself who has understood the tricks and gimmicks that were
used to formulate this so-called balanced budget, which doesn't, of
course, balance.
It is kind of like if I had gone out and said I am going to spend
$2,000 on a cheap racehorse. This is the weekend of the Kentucky Derby.
I am going to go out and buy a cheap racehorse, and I am going to enter
it in the Kentucky Derby. The horse is going to win the Kentucky Derby,
and then I take that prize money from the Kentucky Derby--I might even
be so bold as to predict it is going to win the Triple Crown, and I
take all that money and put it in my budget as if I had actually done
it. That is the way this budget was constructed.
But, again, it is not just me. Virtually everyone who has looked at
this budget--detached, impartial observers--says this is not legitimate
budgeting. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget noted that
the House budget uses ``several budget gimmicks that circumvent budget
discipline,'' adding that ``the details are in some ways unrealistic
and unspecified.''

{time} 1345

The CRFB also observed about the Senate budget, ``Disappointingly,
many of the savings are unrealistic or lack specificity.''
Taxpayers for Common Sense said, ``This isn't budgeting, it's
gimmickry.''
The Fiscal Times noted that ``there is a widely held belief among
many Federal budget watchers that Republicans had to resort to
budgetary smoke and mirrors to create a pathway to a balanced budget.''
While my friend from Georgia and other members of the Rules Committee
and the Budget Committee are praising the fact that they were able to
construct a budget that balances the first time since 2001, it doesn't
balance.
For instance, what it does is it eliminates, repeals--or calls for
the repeal--of the Affordable Care Act and then takes all of the
savings and revenues from the Affordable Care Act and counts that as a
way to add $2 trillion to the positive side of their budget over 10
years.
That is not accurate budgeting. That is gimmickry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman from Kentucky an additional 2
minutes.
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague.
That is not legitimate budgeting. That is just fantasy. That is
really what the budget is about.
Unfortunately, though, there is a very cruel side to this budget. As
my friend from Massachusetts said, this does real damage to the
American people. It does damage to hard-working families who are trying
to get ahead. It actually ends up being a tax increase on hard-working
American families.
It repeals the Affordable Care Act, and I just want to talk a little
bit about what the Affordable Care Act has done in my State because, if
this were to actually happen, here is what the impact on my citizens
would be.
In Kentucky, according to the DeLoitte professional services firm
that did an audit of Kentucky's experience and a projection over the
next 6 years, the Affordable Care Act will contribute $30 billion of
additional economic activity in the State, create 44,000 jobs, and have
a positive impact on the Kentucky State budget of $850 million. That is
in one State.
If you repeal the Affordable Care Act, not only do you do great
damage to the health of Americans, taking insurance away from 16.5
million--in my State, 550,000 who have gained insurance just in the
last year and a half--but you are doing real damage to our education,
to our infrastructure, to our investment in research, to our seniors.
Under this bill, seniors will suffer a great financial hardship, as
well as a loss of benefits.
There is real damage, as I said, to be done with this budget, but I
think the most disturbing part of the entire debate is the fact that
this is not a budget that balances. Yes, the numbers at the end on the
plus and negative side add up.
They actually match after 10 years, but all of the bases for getting
there is about as reliable as, again, if I bought that racehorse and
said I am going to win the Kentucky Derby and counted those winnings
before that race was ever run.
I oppose the rule on the basis of this conference report on the
budget. I think it does great damage to the United States.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young), a member of
the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I thank my colleague for his leadership today
and every day. I really appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and, more broadly, H.J.
Res. 43, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for her
leadership and her conviction on this issue.
We all want to protect the free speech and beliefs of all Americans,
but too often, the line is drawn to discriminate against those with
pro-life views. Ironically, this is often done under the guise of
antidiscrimination, which is exactly what has happened in the District
of Columbia.
Under the recently passed ordinance, religious institutions and other
pro-life employers in our Nation's Capital could be forced to make
decisions that violate their deeply held religious beliefs.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling in Hobby Lobby, for instance, under
this ordinance, religious employers could be compelled to cover
elective abortions in their healthcare coverage or face discrimination
charges.
It would also prevent faith-based employers from taking actions
against employees who participate in activities that run counter to the
mission of that organization. For instance, a pro-life crisis pregnancy
center couldn't terminate an employee who undermines their cause by
volunteering at an abortion clinic.
As a strong pro-life individual myself, it boggles my mind that the
government could force like-minded individuals to violate their
conscience in such ways. Frankly, no American should be comfortable
with such discrimination.

[[Page H2679]]

We must take swift action to stop this ordinance, and I urge my
colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this Nation is founded on two simple and powerful
principles, liberty and equality.
In the 18th century, our Founding Fathers saw liberty as freedom from
the dictates of a tyrannical government and fought to the death to
protect it. What they could not foresee is a modern form of tyranny,
the tyranny of employers who seek to impose their beliefs on their
employees and control their personal decisions.
I am saddened that, today, my Republican colleagues are bringing up
yet another bill to enable employers to control their private, personal
decisions of their employees. Today, this body may, with a single vote,
strip over 650,000 American citizens of their essential liberty to make
their own choices about their health care and their families.
Make no mistake, the District of Columbia's new law, the Reproductive
Health Non-Discrimination Act, is about liberty. We are not talking
about an employer who objects to paying for insurance that covers
contraception.
D.C. passed this law to protect the citizens from an employer who
tells a woman that she will be fired for using contraception or for
using in vitro fertilization to start a family or for engaging in any
other conduct that violates the employer's religious beliefs.
The D.C. law we are asked to overturn says your employer should not
be able to impose his religious beliefs on you. You should not be fired
because your religious beliefs differ from those of your employer. The
D.C. law protects religious liberty. The disapproval resolution imposes
religious coercion.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle who claim so
vociferously to support freedom and liberty stand here today and say to
the American people: you do not have the right to make decisions about
when and how to start a family; your employer has the right to make
those decisions for you.
I challenge any Member of this body to go home this weekend and
explain that to their constituents and why they must now live under the
yoke of their employer's tyranny. The American people will not stand
for it, and we must not stand for it today.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the
disapproval resolution. We must send a strong message to the American
people that freedom and religious liberty still exist in this country.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my great pleasure to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp), a member
of the class of 2010, and a public servant.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. I appreciate my colleague from Georgia yielding me
time to discuss this rule and the underlying issue.
I do want to report that it was 229 years ago that the Virginia
General Assembly ratified the Virginia statute for religious freedom.
This was authored by Thomas Jefferson. The statute serves as the model
for the free exercise clause in our First Amendment. This is what it
said:

No man shall . . . suffer on account of his religious
opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to
profess, and by argument, to maintain, their opinions in
matters of religion.

Mr. Speaker, religious freedom is a fundamental human right protected
by our First Amendment. It is essential to our free and flourishing
society. Our Nation was found, in part, by individuals seeking refuge
from religious persecution, from religious discrimination. For these
pioneers and for all to come after, America was meant to be a permanent
fortress of liberty and freedom for all who live within its walls.
At its essence, the concept of religious freedom is about much more
than religion. It is much more than just showing up to worship service
1 day or 1 night a week. It is about our fundamental human right to
hold our own beliefs and to live out our lives according to these
faiths.
Religious freedom, quite simply, is about freedom itself. This is why
the very first part of the very First Amendment to our Constitution is
about religious freedom. It is our first and most cherished liberty.
However, our ability to be free to live out the convictions of our
faith not only in the public square, but also in the privacy of our own
homes, in our churches, in our businesses, is in jeopardy right here in
our Nation's Capital.
The misleading name RHNDA is nothing more than a legalized
discrimination. If allowed to go in effect, the government would force
pro-life organizations, pro-life ministries, pro-life business, pro-
life churches, pro-life individuals in the District to violate the very
heart of their lives and their work and be coerced into paying for
abortion on demand and be forced to hire antilife individuals who
actually promote abortion. As a Catholic and as an American, I am
offended by such coercion.
Now is the time for Congress to stand up against this direct assault
on our freedom of religion, our freedom of association, and our freedom
of speech.
I encourage my colleagues to join me and honor our constitutional
oath of office by adopting this rule and passing H.J. Res. 43.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a member of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend from Massachusetts for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the many Democrats who have rallied to
the defense of reproductive health decisions of men and women in the
District of Columbia, especially since this is a resolution to overturn
a District of Columbia law that everyone in this Chamber will be able
to vote on, except me.
I wish to respond to a set of untruths you have heard from the other
side that, for example, the D.C. law is an assault on religion. On the
contrary, it protects an employer's religious beliefs. He can hold
those religious beliefs if that is part of what his organization does.
The employee must advocate those beliefs. Whatever the organization or
business, the employee must advocate the employer's views, not his own.
What the employer cannot do is to go into the employee's bedroom to
find out what kind of reproductive choices he makes on his own as a
private matter.
Abortion has been raised as if it were in this bill. In fact, just
the opposite--the D.C. law makes it clear that insurance is not
involved, paying for abortion is not involved.
Republicans have done almost the inconceivable. They have resumed,
with this disapproval resolution, the war on women, by adding men.
The D.C. law protects all employees from job discrimination by the
employer for their reproductive health choices. For example, if the
employer discriminates against a male employee who has contributed
sperm for in vitro fertilization to help his wife become pregnant, that
male employee is also protected.
There has been an attempt to tie the D.C. law to abortion; but, if an
employee refuses to carry out--indeed, to advocate--the mission of the
organization that opposes abortion, then that employee can be fired.
In fact, you can ask that employee before that employee is hired:
Will you advocate vigorously against abortion the way this organization
does? That employee must say yes, or that employee may not insist on
any right to be hired.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the manager of this bill
never defended the bill on the merits; instead, he defended the tyranny
of Federal power over local matters.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
Ms. NORTON. The Home Rule Act, in its terms, Mr. Speaker, does not--
and it says so--envision overturning local law, and it says so in its
terms. There are only a few matters that the Home Rule Act mentions
that cannot be enacted, and the matter on the floor is not one of them.
Republicans have been champions for federalism and local control; yet
they are trying to impose their own preferences on a local jurisdiction
whose Member cannot even vote for or against it. This is a double
whammy.
Their goal here is to resume the war on women. The predicate for
getting to

[[Page H2680]]

the Nation's women is the D.C. Home Rule Act. It goes after D.C.'s
right to self-government and women at the same time.
The coming attraction in your district is that this bill or a version
of it is pending all over the country. Stop it here, or it will spread
throughout the United States of America.

{time} 1400

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my great pleasure to
yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the
vice chairman of the Rules Committee.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague from Georgia for
the great leadership he shows in the Rules Committee and on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made
many comments. Some of them, I am going to do my best to refute comment
by comment; others, I am just going to talk about in general.
Their one charge is that Congress should stay out of the business of
governing D.C. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives
Congress explicit jurisdiction over the country's seat of government.
The extent to which Congress should oversee or intervene in the
governance of the District is a debate for another day, but it is
clearly our responsibility.
Current law compels congressional oversight, and we must exercise
responsibly that jurisdiction. That includes acting to stop legislation
that clearly violates the constitutional freedoms of the citizens of
the District.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that women are protected by law,
both Federal and D.C., from discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.
Their personal medical decisions are also private under HIPAA
protections.
This discussion is not about how someone chooses to conduct their
personal affairs. It is about whether the D.C. government may force an
organization to hire, retain, and promote someone who actively opposes
their central mission and core beliefs.
Pro-life groups, religious organizations, and Republicans, are not
the only ones to see significant problems with RHNDA. Even former D.C.
Mayor Vincent Gray cautioned that RHNDA goes too far, and called the
bill ``legally insufficient'' and ``legally problematic.''
Whatever his position may be on life issues, he recognized that the
approach taken by the City Council does not adequately protect free
exercise. He further noted that the measure ``raises serious concerns
under the Constitution and under the Religions Freedom Restoration
Act.''
The District's own attorney general also expressed concerns that
``religious organizations, religiously affiliated organizations,
religiously-driven for-profit entities, and political organizations may
have strong First Amendment and RFRA grounds for challenging the law's
applicability to them.''
The D.C. Council's cavalier attitude toward the constitutional rights
protecting religious practice and belief is deeply troubling.
Unfortunately, RHNDA is a harbinger of continued efforts to undermine
the right of free exercise and association.
RHNDA denies these fundamental rights to pro-life organizations and
religious groups who do not fit the narrow definition of ``ministers''
exempted from the D.C. law. Under this law, these organizations can be
forced to hire, retain, and promote individuals who work actively
against their central mission and core beliefs.
The clear and shameless targeting of these organizations must be
opposed by anyone who values the rights guaranteed to us by the First
Amendment.
Mr. Speaker, our oath of office requires us to preserve, protect, and
defend the Constitution of the United States.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2012 that religious
organizations have the right to hire individuals that support their
mission, saying: ``The interest of society in the enforcement of
employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important. But so,
too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach
their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission . . . The
church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.''
Consistent with our oath of office, I commend this rule and
disapproval resolution for our support.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), a member of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is
extreme, and it is an outrage to women everywhere. The Republican
majority is saying with this resolution that they think a woman's
employer has a say in the woman's reproductive healthcare choices, even
though the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and women all across this
country know that they don't.
It is bad enough that the majority party believes your boss should
dictate whether your healthcare plan covers birth control. Now they
want to make sure your boss has the right to fire you just for using
birth control.
If that was all they were saying, that is outrageous enough, but it
is not. This resolution would actually give employers the right to fire
an employee for the reproductive healthcare choices of their spouses,
or even their children.
Think about it. The other side is saying that it is all right to fire
someone because their boss doesn't like their wife's, or even their
children's, healthcare choices. Talk about restricting someone's
rights.
It would take away a whole range of women's private decisions and
make them fireable offenses. In vitro fertilization, you are fired.
Exercising your right to choose, you are fired. You have a daughter on
birth control, you are fired.
This is outrageous, ridiculous, and totally unacceptable. It is an
insult to women everywhere. And even more amazing is that this
resolution is being proposed by the so-called party of states' rights.
They are not proposing a Federal law. They are taking away the rights
of a locality, the District, Washington, D.C., which is larger than
some States and has a population larger than most States.
This is a new low in this Congress. I urge a strong ``no'' vote.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, for folks who were just turning on the TVs back in their
office, they may think we are in the middle of issue debate right now--
not the case. We can get into issue debate as soon as we pass this rule
to begin that debate.
What makes me so proud about the work that we do in the Rules
Committee is that it makes in order the ability to have these kinds of
in-depth discussions.
We can't have this kind of discussion right here--there are three
topics in this bill--because these three topics in this bill will come
later in the day, each being discussed individually.
I will go back to where I began, Mr. Speaker. We are exercising
responsibilities of the Constitution under Article I, section 8, that
require us to do oversight on the District of Columbia. Similarly, we
are pushing back on executive overreach in H.R. 1732, the Regulatory
Integrity Protection Act. That is that big Federal grab over all the
water that our States are currently regulating. And finally, we will be
bringing up that balanced budget, the first reconciled budget that most
in this Chamber have ever seen.
This rule makes that debate possible. It will be a free and open
debate on the budget, as we allowed every single budget to be debated
earlier on this floor, it is going to be an open debate on H.R. 1732,
the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, where the Rules Committee made
in order every Democratic suggestion that was offered there, every
amendment that came before the Rules Committee. And it will be an up-
or-down vote after debate on H.J. Res. 43, the resolution of
disapproval, as the very 1974 act that provided for self-governance of
the District of Columbia anticipated.

If we pass this rule, Mr. Speaker, we can get into that substance,
and I look forward to a robust debate on all three of those topics.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. McGovern, for your leadership and for
yielding.

[[Page H2681]]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to H.J.
Res. 43. This bill would undermine the District's Reproductive Health
Non-Discrimination Act, which would protect employees who work in the
District from workplace discrimination based on the employee's personal
reproductive healthcare decisions.
For example, this includes prohibiting an employer from firing an
employee for using in vitro fertilization or birth control.
Simply put, this rule and bill is yet another Republican attack on
women's access to health care and another battle in the war on women.
And of course, as always, you target the women of the District of
Columbia to set a standard for the rest of the country.
What in the world is the connection between your private healthcare
decisions and job performance? This is so cynical. It is so wrong. No
woman should have an employer or a politician interfering in her
personal health decisions.
The D.C. government has a right to determine how they want to protect
their workers. Employees should be evaluated at work based on their
performance, not on their personal and private reproductive healthcare
decisions.
The District of Columbia seeks basic fairness for its women, and this
rule and this resolution are outrageous. It is undemocratic and, once
again, ignores the Home Rule Act. Yes, Congress should not be dictating
any policy to the District of Columbia. This debate has been held. The
Home Rule Act was passed in 1973.
Instead of undermining the law that seeks to protect the citizens and
women of D.C. from discrimination based on their private reproductive
healthcare decisions, we should be getting back to the real business
that Congress needs to address, like strengthening our economy, lifting
families out of poverty, criminal justice reform, and creating job
opportunities for all.
So let's defeat this. Let's support the District of Columbia and its
decisions. Let's respect them. Let's respect the women of the District
of Columbia. They, too, have that right.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Massachusetts
I do not have any further speakers remaining, and I would inquire if he
has any further speakers remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. I do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Thank you to the gentleman from Worcester
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and its
assault on Americans' reproductive health rights. All women should have
the right to make their own healthcare decisions without fear of losing
their jobs.
With reports of women being fired for undergoing in vitro
fertilization and being fired for being a single mom, the City Council
of Washington, D.C. passed a resolution to ban workplace discrimination
based on personal reproductive healthcare decisions.
This joint resolution does not infringe on religious liberty. It
ensures the freedom to practice individual religious and moral beliefs.
This decision of the D.C. Council will protect women and ensure that
reproductive health decisions are made by women and not their employers
and not corporations.
It is 2015, and I would love for Congress to be debating women in the
workplace. We should be talking about how we achieve equal pay, how we
increase paid sick leave, and how to help working families make ends
meet. We should not be stripping away the progress that has already
been made.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3\1/4\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia has 12\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ quarter minutes to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank my good friend, because I would like to correct
some misstatements from the other side.
Mr. Speaker, the former Mayor and the former Attorney General never
detailed what their concern was, but just in case, the District passed
an amendment that made it clear that insurance and abortion are not
covered by this bill.
I want to be explicit.

{time} 1415

A pro-life organization is not required to hire someone who advocates
against abortion. An employee must carry out and must advocate whatever
is the mission of the organization.
This bill has an exception for organizations' religious and political
views. Both must be carried out.
The 1973 Home Rule Act has not come to this floor before because only
three times in 25 years has it been taken up, and that was mostly
because D.C. mistakenly wandered into Federal matters. That is why this
Federal authority was retained in the House of Representatives and in
the Senate, not to overturn local law whenever the other side simply
disagreed with it.
I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding.
Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule. I just wanted to make
that clear before I continue here.
Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating to come to the floor and have to
squeeze into a very short period of time three different bills on one
rule. These are three very controversial bills.
You have heard about the bill that essentially is a war on women in
the District of Columbia, that denies women and men their privacy and
their right to reproductive health care. We have a bill in here also
that essentially tries to gut the Clean Water Act, which is very
controversial and has a very direct impact on the health and well-being
of the people of this country. And then we have this budget that was
filed minutes before the Rules Committee met. Nobody read it.
I should also point out that the Rules Committee reports that,
although the resolution waives all points of order against provisions
in H.J. Res. 43, the committee is not aware of any point of order.
Well, one of the points of order is the 3-day layover, which is being
violated, so the committee is waiving a point of order with regard to
that.
Look, we should be debating an immigration reform bill. We should be
debating a pay equity bill. We should be debating an increase in the
minimum wage. We should be debating a comprehensive long-term highway
and transportation reauthorization bill to help rebuild this country.
There are so many important things that we should be debating, and,
instead, we are bringing these wedge issues to the floor. We are
bringing an anti-environmental bill to the floor that is going nowhere,
and we are bringing a budget to the floor that paves the way for a lot
of nothing.
Unless we fix the sequestration problem, the Senate is not going to
take up any of these appropriations bills, and neither should we.
We ought to put the American people first and put the electioneering
off. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I love about this institution is my
colleagues come to the floor with different life experiences. They come
with different opinions. They come with a different set of bosses. The
700,000 folks that I call my boss back home in Georgia, I am sure, have
very different views than those who call themselves the boss of my
friend from Massachusetts.
But I tell you, the three bills that this rule makes in order--not
that this

[[Page H2682]]

rule declares a foregone conclusion of passage. No. It just makes in
order for debate on the floor of this House. These three bills are
exactly the kind of thing that this House should be working on, and I
am proud to bring it today.
Number one, Mr. Speaker, I don't serve on the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee. That is where this resolution of
disapproval has come from. I did last cycle. I don't this cycle. I have
heard colleague after colleague come to the floor and defend the rights
of not being fired because your sister or your daughter or your son or
your brother used birth control.
Mr. Speaker, that is outrageous. I can't imagine that someone would
be fired for what their sister or their brother does in terms of their
reproductive health choices. I agree. I agree. And if there is an
opportunity to work together to prevent that from happening--that is
apparently happening en masse here in the District of Columbia--I want
to be a part of it.
But the truth is, it is not happening en masse. In fact, it is not
happening at all. It is not happening at all.
Mr. Speaker, I do not mind being lectured by my friends to get back
to the business of the people. I do not mind. In fact, I am onboard
with it every single day of the week. We can start earlier, and we can
start later, and I will be here. But do not, Mr. Speaker, do not
lecture me on getting about the business of the people and come down
with story after story after story that is not what this legislation is
about, that is not a problem, that is not something that any of us
disagree on.
Mr. Speaker, we have some legitimate disagreements on this floor, and
if we pass this rule, we will be able to get into the nitty-gritty of
those disagreements.
But we do not disagree on the freedom of family members to make their
own reproductive health choices without it impacting our own
employment.
I will say to my friend sincerely: if we can find a case in the
District of Columbia--I don't mean a case this year; I don't mean a
case last year; I mean a case ever of that happening--seek me out as
your partner, and I will help you. Because what folks seem to miss here
in this conga line of frustration is that if we reject the D.C.
Council's resolution, we return D.C. to the law of the land as it
exists, when? Today. We don't take a single right away from anybody. We
don't take a single freedom away from anybody. We are not interested in
doing that whatsoever. What we are interested in doing is protecting
religious freedom.
It turns out, if you live in Washington, D.C., Mr. Speaker, you might
work for an institution that lobbies for life. You might work for an
institution that focuses on faith. This is a town of ideas, Mr.
Speaker.
In the rush to pass a piece of legislation--these are not my words.
These are the words of Vincent Gray in his letter to the members of the
council of the District of Columbia:

In the rush to push this bill through, the council did not
take the time to protect this cathedral of freedom that we
have here, did not take the time to make sure that that first
and most important of our constitutional freedoms was
protected.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is the Constitution. There is
nothing that the District of Columbia can do to undermine the
Constitution. But they can cause a lot of problems for folks along the
way. This is a resolution of disapproval to prevent that from
happening.
Mr. Speaker, the second bill that is here, H.R. 1732, the Regulatory
Integrity Protection Act, my friends suggest that we are talking about
clean water in this country, that this is about Republicans undermining
clean water.
I will say again, as I said about the resolution of disapproval: if
we pass this bill, we will roll the regulatory environment of clean
water so far back, it will be just like it is today. That is what we
are going to do. I just want to be clear about those radical ideas that
my friends on the left have suggested.
If we have the will in this body to pass this bill, we are going to
roll regulations so far back, it will be exactly like it is as I am
standing here today.
Mr. Speaker, what this bill is about is preventing the regulatory
overreach going forward.
Guess what: I live in Gwinnett County, Georgia. I challenge you to
have a water treatment plant that does a better job than we do. We have
a water fountain right there where the sewage gets treated, Mr.
Speaker. You can go ahead and press that water fountain and have
yourself a drink. That is how clean it is. We put it back into the lake
cleaner than we take it out of the lake.
I will not be lectured by my friends in an executive office downtown
about how to clean water in the State of Georgia. I promise you, I care
more about clean water in Georgia than anyone on Pennsylvania Avenue
does. We are succeeding today.
If we have a problem with State regulation of clean water, come to
me. I will be your partner. We will work on that together.
The problem is not that Georgia isn't doing a good job. The problem
is, the Feds are planning to get in the way of Georgia doing a good
job. This bill will stop it. If we pass this rule, we will be able to
have that debate.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill that makes me the proudest is our
concurrent budget resolution. My friends have lots to say about why it
is this budget doesn't balance. Let's be clear: I believe that they are
wrong.
But what is more important in this discussion, Mr. Speaker, is that
my friends don't want the budget to balance. We had a free and open
debate on this floor. We considered every budget that any Member of
this Chamber wanted to offer, every single one.
An interesting thing happened, Mr. Speaker. Every Republican budget
that was introduced balanced within 10 years and didn't raise taxes on
hard-working Americans. Every single budget the Democrats introduced
never balanced--not in 10 years, not in 20 years, not in 100 years--and
every single one raised taxes on hard-working Americans by trillions of
dollars. Trillions of dollars in new taxes, and it still didn't reach
balance.
My friends, I understand we have a fundamental disagreement about how
this country ought to be run, and I am glad that we have that debate
here in this Chamber. We are a deliberative body. I respect the
opinions of my friends. I do believe there is a common ground that we
can come to. But, Mr. Speaker, this is that common ground today.
For years, the budget wasn't even passed in the United States Senate,
much less try to bring it together so that the House and the Senate are
working off a single page of music.
For the first time since 1991, this Chamber has done its job in
concert with the Senate. It is no small thing. Far from being something
to be criticized, it is something to be celebrated.
I don't know where the votes are going to be, Mr. Speaker.
Conferencing something with the Senate is hard. I promise you that my
bosses back home in Georgia have a much more conservative view of the
world than many of the folks do in the United States Senate. But guess
what, I don't get everything I want every day. But what I get is an
opportunity to come together to build that bridge of common ground and
agreement.
That is the agreement we have before us today--not my ideas, not
Democratic ideas, not Republican ideas, but collaborative House-Senate
ideas--a budget for the Federal Government for the first time in 15
years.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues: Take a look at this rule.
You will be proud. Take a look at the work of the hard-working people
in the Rules Committee upstairs--nine Republicans, four Democrats
getting together late in the evening, trying to make the rules work--
you will be proud.
Every single Democratic amendment was made in order on the Regulatory
Integrity Protection Act. The resolution of disapproval, brought
exactly as the Home Rule Act intended: last used by Democrats to
disapprove; today used by this Chamber.
And finally, that budget brought only after every single Member's
ideas were debated, and the best rose to the top.
Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support from all of my colleagues for this
fair and honest rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 231, the special rule governing
consideration of the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11,
the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2016, included
a prophylactic waiver of points of order against its consideration and
it was described as such in House

[[Page H2683]]

Report 114-98. Due to an unexpected change in the legislative schedule,
the waiver of all points of order against consideration would now
include a waiver of clause 8(a)(1)(A) of rule XXII, prohibiting the
consideration of a conference report until the third calendar day on
which the conference report has been available in the Congressional
Record.
It is important to note that the text of the conference report and
the joint explanatory statement were made available in electronic form
on April 29, 2015.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 231 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

In section 2, strike ``except one hour of debate.'' and
insert ``except one hour of debate and one motion to recommit
with instructions that the Managers on the part of the
House--
(1) reject the austere and mindless sequester spending cuts
in critical services and instead offer a plan to put the
budget on a fiscally responsible path by making responsible,
targeted spending cuts and by closing special interest tax
breaks that benefit only the very wealthiest.
(2) provide equal increases in both defense and non-defense
spending above the sequester cap levels to:
a. make necessary investments that boost the economy to
create jobs, rebuild our infrastructure, educate our children
and sharpen the nation's competitive edge;
b. avoid another unnecessary and harmful government
shutdown; and
c. protect national security, including law enforcement,
homeland security, defense and international programs that
help protect the nation; and
(3) protect Medicare and reject attempts to end Medicare's
guaranteed benefit by turning it into a voucher system that
will increase costs for seniors and destabilize the
traditional Medicare program that has served seniors well for
half a century.
____

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. With that, 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
agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241,
nays 181, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 180]

YEAS--241

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--181

[[Page H2684]]

Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--9

Frankel (FL)
Lewis
McKinley
Payne
Polis
Scott (VA)
Smith (MO)
Wasserman Schultz
Welch

{time} 1455

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

Recorded Vote

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 181, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 181]

AYES--242

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--181

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--8

Kirkpatrick
Lewis
Lujan Grisham (NM)
McKinley
Payne
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Welch

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1504

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.

____________________