[Pages H5112-H5119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5063, STOP SETTLEMENT SLUSH FUNDS
ACT OF 2016

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 843 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 843

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. 5063) to limit donations made pursuant to
settlement agreements to which the United States is a party,
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment
in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. 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 committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. 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.

{time} 1245

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. 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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 843, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to bring
forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides
for consideration of H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of
2016.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and also
provides a motion to recommit.
Additionally, the rule makes in order 7 of the 11 amendments
submitted, representing ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.
Subcommittee hearings were held on both H.R. 5063 and on the topic of
the Department of Justice's mortgage lending settlements with major
lending banks. In May of this year, H.R. 5063 was marked up and
reported by the Judiciary Committee. The bill passed the Judiciary
Committee after the consideration of several amendments. The Stop
Settlement Slush Funds Act went through regular order and enjoyed
thorough discussion at both the subcommittee and full committee level.
H.R. 5063 is supported by the Institute for Legal Reform, Americans
for Limited Government, and Americans for Tax Reform because it
increases accountability for how settlement funds are spent and it
helps to restore the balance of power between the branches of
government.
The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act was introduced after the nearly
20-month investigation by the House Judiciary Committee found that the
Department of Justice was systematically circumventing Congress and
directing settlement money to activist groups. This bill will help
address that problem.
The power of the purse is one of Congress' greatest tools to rein in
the executive branch and exercise oversight. It is no surprise, then,
that this administration would want to find a way around that oversight
and grow its authority. In fact, in the last 2 years alone, the
Department of Justice has funneled non-victim third-party groups as
much as $880 million.
The Department of Justice does this by collecting money from parties
who have broken the law and then use that money to create a slush fund,
rather than sending the money to the victims of the illicit activity.
The Department of Justice allows the ``donations''--if that is what
they are called--required under the settlements to count as a double
credit against defendants' payment obligations. Interestingly, credit
for direct relief to consumers is only counted as dollar for dollar,
indicating

[[Page H5113]]

the importance the Department of Justice places on directing these
funds to non-victim third-party groups.
For example, the Department of Justice negotiated settlement
agreements to the tune of millions of dollars with major banks for
misleading investors over mortgage-backed securities, well within what
they are supposed to do. Then the Department of Justice said that
banks, or other parties it has settled with, could meet some of their
settlement obligations by making donations to certain groups. The money
goes to these groups partially under the guise that those groups would
provide services to the aggrieved parties. In reality, this practice
directs funds away from victims and allows the Department of Justice to
steer money to non-victim third-party groups, usually administration
friendly, politically motivated organizations.
Additionally, the parties that receive these funds, these non-victim
third-party organizations, aren't a part of the case, they don't
represent the victims, and aren't subject to congressional oversight
for the funds they receive. Even if most of these groups weren't
activist groups, this would be a concerning scenario.
The donations to third-party groups allow the Department of Justice
to funnel money to friendly parties outside of the appropriations
process and outside congressional approval. Many of these third-party
groups are unquestionably political and certainly wouldn't be
considered nonpartisan by mutual observers. In fact, the mortgage
settlement cases, groups like the National Council of La Raza received
more than $1 million in Department of Housing and Urban Development
grants under the settlements.
I don't know about you, but I think that when DOJ requires a
settlement, the funds should go back to the victims involved in the
case, including victims back home in northeast Georgia. And if the
victims cannot be found or if the problem cannot be directly rectified,
then the settlement funds should go on to the Treasury so that Congress
can appropriately decide how to use them.
I don't think it is acceptable to shortchange victims to benefit
special interests and politically friendly third-party organizations,
but that is exactly what the administration has been doing. The
administration is trying to usurp the power of the purse through these
settlement slush funds and has only gotten more confident that they can
get away with it.
Maybe even more troubling, despite repeated requests for more
information, the Department of Justice is refusing to provide it. What
little information has been provided indicates that groups that stood
to gain from the mandatory donations actually lobbied DOJ to include
them in settlements.
Mr. Speaker, listen to what that says. Actually, one of the things
that we have gained from this is the fact that the groups that stood to
gain from these ``mandatory'' donations were lobbying DOJ to get the
money--not a party to the case, not a party to the victims, but wanting
their cut of the pie.
In at least one case, the Department of Justice restored funding to a
program that Congress specifically cut. Congress cut funding in half
for a Housing and Urban Development program known as the Housing
Counseling Assistance Program. But after grant recipients of this
program expressed their displeasure at the cuts, they received a
helping hand from who else--the Department of Justice.
The DOJ mortgage settlements ensured that, despite congressional
action to the contrary, eliminating funding for these groups would be
restored. DOJ didn't just stop at circumventing Congress' funding
authority in that case; instead, they directly violated the
congressional intent. Again, a congressional oversight overstep misused
because the agency decided it knew better than the elected
representatives of the people.
It is time to reassert congressional authority over this process so
that hardworking folks are protected from more executive overreach and
the separation of powers is restored. At a Judiciary hearing in May on
this bill, Heritage Foundation scholar Paul Larkin testified that
``Congress identifies precisely who may receive Federal funds.''
That is what we do. I agree with him, but the Department of Justice's
settlement process in recent years undercuts that critical function of
the separation of powers. That is why we have to act and why the
underlying bill is so important.
The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act prohibits settlement terms that
require donations to non-victim third parties. Importantly, the bill
clarifies that payments that provide restitution for harm caused are
not donations.
Additionally, H.R. 5063 restores the separation of powers by
establishing that settlement funds remaining after victims have been
compensated are overseen by Congress. Rather than directing money
outside the appropriations process, the bill returns the funds to the
Treasury to remediate damages after victims have been taken care of.
I urge everyone here today to think about their constituents who one
day may be victims looking for restitution. I want to go home and tell
those hardworking Georgians that I represent that I am making sure they
are put first, not special interests. I hope that others will share
that feeling by supporting the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, 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 want to thank the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Collins), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this week, we return from 7 weeks away from the Capitol,
the longest summer recess in modern times, and House Republicans
continue to delay action on the most pressing issues facing our
country, instead focusing on issues that benefit special interests, and
issues, quite frankly, that are going nowhere.
I had hoped that after we all spent some time with our constituents
over the summer recess, the priorities of this Republican leadership
would change to reflect what the American people actually care about,
but they haven't. During our 252 days in session--which, by the way,
includes 42 pro forma days where no legislative business was
accomplished--we have voted on countless bills to repeal the Affordable
Care Act, undermine financial protections put in place by Dodd-Frank,
and weaken environmental protections. We are back on the floor this
week to deregulate Wall Street, take away critical investor
protections, and make it easier for those who break the law to get away
without paying a financial price.
Today's rule provides for the consideration of a bill that eliminates
public interest protections, creates needless litigation and delay, and
imposes draconian penalties on Federal officials. It is a misinformed
response to a nonexistent problem, and just one more corporate giveaway
by this Republican Congress. And, again, remember, it is going nowhere.
This isn't leadership, Mr. Speaker. It is like a recurring nightmare.
While spending time on efforts that are nothing more than sound bites
from my friends on the other side of the aisle to use on the campaign
trail, this Republican Congress has repeatedly ignored the calls of our
constituents to act on issues they care about--issues that impact our
communities, our neighborhoods, and our families.
House Republicans continue to obstruct meaningful action on the
greatest public health crisis impacting our country. Almost 17,000
Americans, including nearly 1,600 pregnant women, are currently
suffering from the Zika virus. This month, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention will run out of resources to fight Zika. In the
words of Dr. Thomas Frieden of the CDC, ``We need Congress to act.''
For 7 months, President Obama and Democrats in Congress have urged
the Republican leadership to take up and pass the administration's
emergency supplemental request. But instead of considering a bipartisan
Zika funding bill, the Republican leadership in this House has, once
again, caved to the most extreme faction of their conference to produce
an inadequate, partisan bill loaded with poison pill offsets.
This is an emergency. We should treat it as such. But Republicans
have spent months making excuses about

[[Page H5114]]

why we don't need to provide the full funding that our Nation's public
health experts say we need. We have had public health expert after
public health expert tell us that we need to act, and yet my Republican
friends think they know better. They have brought to the floor
legislation to undermine the Clean Water Act under the guise of
containing the Zika virus. They have even insisted on poison pill
riders that continue the Republican assault on women's access to
comprehensive health care, instead of bringing legislation that is
focused solely on protecting American families from the terrible
impacts of Zika.
House Republicans have blocked the full emergency resources needed to
combat the Zika virus seven times, and left town for a 53-day recess
without committing a dime to address this growing public health crisis.
It is shameful.
In addition to shirking our responsibilities on the Zika virus, this
Republican leadership has prevented action on other public health
emergencies like the opiate crisis and the terrible tragedy in Flint,
Michigan, and the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our communities.
Congress passed a bill to address the opiate crisis and it was an
important step, but we must do more. We need to pass a strong piece of
legislation that actually funds our fight against the opiate crisis and
gives State and local partners the resources they need to help so many
of our communities that have been hit hard by this epidemic. Passing a
bill that has all these nice statements in it and nice goals and not
funding it, well, that is just a press release, and that is about the
extent of what this Congress has done to deal with this terrible opiate
crisis.
For 2 years, 100,000 people in Flint, Michigan, could not access safe
water from their own faucets--100,000 people. For 2 years, hardworking
Americans were denied the fundamental right of access to potable water.
We are not talking about some tiny country halfway around the world.
This has been happening right here in the United States of America.
The Families of Flint Act, led by my friend and colleague,
Congressman Dan Kildee, would help the people of Flint, Michigan,
recover from this man-made disaster that they are still dealing with;
but this Congress is too busy wasting its time to even consider
bringing this vitally important, noncontroversial bill up for a vote.
Where is the majority leadership on this? Why are they simply sitting
back and allowing countless families in Flint to continue to be unable
to turn on their faucets and receive the safe water that they need and,
quite frankly, that should be a basic right in this country, the very
same safe water that Speaker Ryan and so many of us take for granted?
In fact, it was recently discovered that there were elevated levels
of lead in the Cannon House Office Building. Congress has spared no
expense in addressing that issue, yet has failed to give the Families
of Flint Act a single vote or hearing even in this Chamber.

{time} 1300

This Republican Congress has failed Flint by refusing to adequately
fund our water infrastructure for years, and we are failing them again
by not passing this commonsense legislation.
While we have delayed action on a response to the Zika virus and to
the crisis in Flint, Michigan, House Republicans have also refused to
act on bipartisan, commonsense legislation to keep guns out of the
hands of suspected terrorists and criminals. In fact, House Republicans
have voted 24 times to block the no-fly, no-buy measure, which polls
indicate is supported by 74 percent of our constituents. They have
blocked debate on legislation to expand and strengthen background
checks.
If you go to a licensed gun dealer, you have to go through a
background check, but if you go to a gun show or if you buy a gun
online, you don't have to go through a background check. What sense
does that make? Who could be against that? Yet they have voted time and
time again to deny us the right to bring that to the floor. They have
voted five times against lifting the 19-year-long ban on Federal
research on gun violence. What is the Republican Congress so afraid of?
We came back yesterday. I was looking through the press and was
trying to figure out if, maybe, the Republican leadership in this House
would actually do something about gun violence in order to protect the
American people and to make sure that people who have a history of
violent crime don't have access to guns or that people who are
dangerously, mentally ill don't have access to guns. I thought, maybe,
some of their constituents would kind of knock some common sense into
their heads while they were on recess.
But we come back, and what do we read? What is the Republican
leadership's response to all of this?
They want to bring a resolution to the floor to punish Democrats for
having the audacity to raise our voices in protest over the fact that
we cannot even get a vote on any of these bills that we think could
save lives. They want to punish us; they want to sanction us; they want
to condemn us because we said that, in the greatest deliberative body
in the world, we ought to be able to deliberate.
Apparently, the Republican leadership is outraged over what they say
is a breach of decorum that shut down the Chamber for 25 hours because
Democrats had a sit-in here in protest over the fact that we can't
bring any legislation up for a debate. They are outraged over that.
That is where their outrage is.
My question is: Where is the outrage over the 50 innocent civilians
who were killed in Orlando? Where is the outrage over the 14 people who
were killed in San Bernardino or over the 9 people who were killed in a
church in Charleston, South Carolina? Is there any outrage over that?
Where is the outrage over the 27, mostly children, who were killed in
Newtown, Connecticut, or over the 12 people who were killed in a movie
theater in Aurora, Colorado, or the outrage over the 6 people who were
killed in Tucson, Arizona, where our former colleague, Gabby Giffords,
was shot, or over the 32 people who were killed at Virginia Tech?
Since my Republican friends have been in recess, over 4,000 Americans
have been shot and killed in gun violence in this country--over 4,000.
Where is the outrage? The only outrage that my Republican friends seem
to have is over the fact that Democrats have had the audacity to raise
this question about maybe we should do something, maybe we can do
something to protect our constituents.
I say to my colleagues: We don't need a slap on the wrist from the
Republican leadership here. We need to reform our laws to ensure that
guns are kept out of the wrong hands.
Over 32,000 people in America die from gun violence each year--about
89 people per day. If this isn't a public health emergency, Mr.
Speaker, I don't know what is.
But you come back, and this is what we are going to be debating on
the House floor? Oh, my God. This is it? I mean the outrage, quite
frankly, from the American people against the leadership of this House
is over the fact that the Republican leaders have turned this place
into a Congress in which trivial issues are debated passionately and
important ones not at all. Enough. Let's do the people's business. We
are not doing it today, and I hope that my colleagues will reconsider
their agenda for the time we are back here and will actually do
something meaningful.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me just clarify, Mr. Speaker, why we are here. This is a rule for
H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act. One clarification as to
what was just mentioned is that this bill does not allow any company to
get off the hook. They are going through the process, and they are
paying their fines. What we are trying to let off the hook here is the
Department of Justice, which believes that it is the arbitrator of the
world to their own pet projects.
Let's get back to the basics of this bill. If we want to pontificate
on the world, fine, then we can pontificate on the world; but let's get
back to the rule for today, for this moment, and do not tell stories
that don't exist. Congress--both sides--should decide that the
Department of Justice should not be having a settlement of mandatory
donations to pet groups because they don't get enough funding. How
about they

[[Page H5115]]

just go get another job instead of living off settlements from others
when they are not the victims?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just say to my friend from Georgia that
I am not pontificating; I am just expressing frustration over the fact
that we are not doing anything of any consequence here on the House
floor. This legislation that we are dealing with today--in fact, the
legislation that we are going to deal with later in the week--is going
nowhere. Yet we have a Zika crisis; we have a crisis in Flint,
Michigan; and we have a crisis of people who are dying from gun
violence in this country. For some reason, the Republicans who run this
House can't find the time to spend even 1 day talking about those
things.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad you had a little reference here: don't allow
companies or corporations to avoid their responsibilities. I want to
speak to that issue. I think it is very, very, very critical.
Mr. Speaker, let's not beat around the bush. We are on the floor
today debating H.R. 5063 under the guise of ``ensuring
responsibility.'' I mean, who would be against that? That is like apple
pie. However, this bill is nothing more than a political exercise void
of real reprimand for these practices, reforms to the system, or
redress to actual victims. If that is what it did, I would be here
supporting it.
We have known for years of instances where deferred prosecution
agreements have gotten out of hand. You don't remember those days? I
will bring them back to you.
When I tried to make modest reforms to improve the transparency of
these agreements, I was rebuffed by Members on the other side of the
aisle. They have short memories. They have selective memories. Where
was this outrage when I was screaming about seven deferred prosecution
agreements with large medical device companies that were negotiated by
New Jersey's former United States Attorney Chris Christie? There is a
name.
One of the settlements allowed Bristol-Myers Squibb to avoid
prosecution for securities fraud in exchange for a $5 million donation
to Mr. Christie's law school alma mater; and I am listening to
preaching over here and pontificating about what is going on today
about these groups that are lined up to get their money from the
Justice Department. I didn't hear one word--not one word. In fact, if
the gentleman has a word to interject, I will hold on for 10 seconds
and listen.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee has brought this issue up already. If the gentleman does not
know this, he needs to go back, and he can see it. That is why this is
a bipartisan issue. We can be together on this.
Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, in all of the
settlements, Chris Christie appointed political allies and supporters
as monitors to oversee corporate compliance, which the gentleman is
talking about, which netted those allies tens of millions of dollars.
These allies then served as major donors to a political campaign
account.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2
minutes.
Mr. PASCRELL. Now, these arrangements were so problematic that they
prompted the Department of Justice--we have selective memory--to issue
a new guidance limiting prosecutors' discretion in reaching such
agreements, and the Judiciary Committee held an oversight hearing in
2009.
When Democrats tried to highlight the issue of using a public office
to funnel large legal fees to cronies who then turned around and
bankrolled campaigns, those on the other side said they did not see it
for what it was--crony capitalism. They have heard the term before.
Rather, they bent over backward to praise Mr. Christie and accused
Democrats of grasping for ways to embarrass a ``rising Republican
star.'' Now that time has passed and a different administration is in
charge, we are now hearing a different story, but very real issues with
these practices still remain.
I agree that we need reforms, my friend from Georgia. I agree. I hope
that my colleagues will take a look at the deferred prosecution
agreements reform legislation that I, Mr. Pallone, and Mr. Cohen have
introduced.
The issue here is not the government forcing companies to use
deferred prosecution agreements to potentially divert funds away from
helping victims when it comes to corporate malfeasance. The more
egregious issue is that firms have avoided prosecution to begin with.
The little guy gets it in the neck, and the banks and the corporations
are never held accountable. The other side knows. The gentleman, my
friend, has opened up a can of worms here--and I mean that sincerely.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2
minutes.
Mr. PASCRELL. We are on a roll here.
Mr. Speaker, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission made
recommendations to the Department of Justice to criminally prosecute
top executives at several large financial institutions, but we have yet
to see a major Wall Street executive be criminally charged. That is
criminal. You want to know what ``criminal'' is? That is criminal. So
we come here today, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
I don't question the motivations of the sponsor, by the way. That is
not my motive. We learned in March that the Financial Crisis Inquiry
Commission--I will repeat--recommended that the Department of Justice
criminally prosecute. Nothing has been done. I have also written a
letter to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. By the way, this is
not partisan. Our own Justice Department hasn't done anything either.
I am being fair about this, but they have to look into this. They
can't come before us and tell us they are trying to save the little guy
or the victims when they allow this and permit this to go on day in and
day out when the banks never were held accountable. No one has ever
been brought before a court. Eight years later, and we are here.
Rather than wasting time on this fishing expedition, if the House
really wants to ensure punishment is carried out and that the actual
victims receive compensation, we need to actually address the root
cause of the problem.
Mr. Ranking Member, my friend from Georgia, we have to address the
root problem.

{time} 1315

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey. I think the interesting
thing is that I have listened to him--as he said, he is on a roll--and
I think we are probably in more agreement than we are disagreeing here.
I wasn't here to--in fact, you said to ``turn a blind eye.'' This is
a problem, and it doesn't matter who is there. If it is a Republican,
it is wrong; if it is a Democrat, it is wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is why
we are here.
I agree with the outrage. It shouldn't happen, especially when you
get into the fact that the Department of Justice is actually taking
money and putting money to departments and programs that this Congress
had cut funding from. That is not right. I don't care who the
administration is; I don't care who the President is.
I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey. He makes a passionate
argument. Maybe you just need to come over here and help me out. We are
making the right argument here.
So the question now becomes--no matter where it comes from--and the
interesting issue here is this shouldn't be taking place, no matter who
is over it. The problem is, and what I would love to ask is: Where has
the Department of Justice been for the last 7 years on any issue, for
the most part? It has been very frustrating to both sides of the aisle.
On this one, I actually think we can find more agreement than we can
find disagreement.
I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey's remarks because,
frankly, this

[[Page H5116]]

is what this does. It doesn't let them off the hook. It just simply
goes back to looking at these mandatory donations which, again, party
is irrelevant. This is not a role for the Department of Justice.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) how many more speakers he has who want to speak
on this bill on his side? I know the demand has been really great.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, they have been pulling at my
coattails, but I think at this time they are going to hold back.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, let me put this in perspective for everybody. We can
have this conversation here and maybe people can do press releases
after we have a vote on it, but I think we all know that this bill is
going nowhere, and it is going nowhere fast. So we are essentially
wasting our time, we are wasting taxpayer dollars, and we are doing so
at a moment when we have some serious challenges and serious crises
facing our country.
I mentioned gun violence. My friends don't want to do anything about
that; although, according to the press, they want to bring a resolution
to slap our wrists. That is their outrage over all the gun violence
that we have seen, the massacres that we have seen in this country. I
find that stunning, quite frankly. I mean, it takes my breath away
that, in the aftermath of all that has gone on, that that is the best
they can do. Nonetheless, that is their solution, and it is another
waste of time.
We have a crisis in Flint, Michigan, where people still can't turn on
their faucets. We are not talking about a country halfway around the
world. We are talking about a community here in the United States of
America where clean water ought to be a right, and yet we can't seem to
schedule the time to do anything to help solve that problem.
We passed a bill that had some good goals in it with regard to the
opiate crisis that we are facing, but we haven't passed any funding for
it yet. So people can go back home and say, ``Oh, we did something,''
but really they didn't, because a bill that sets out nice goals that
doesn't have any funding really is nothing more than a press release.
We are not talking about funding for any of those priorities to deal
with the opiate crisis.
Then there is the Zika crisis, which is getting worse and worse and
worse, and yet we can't find the time this week to do anything about
it. I find that appalling.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous
question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment
to the rule to bring up legislation that fully funds the
administration's efforts to mount a robust and long-term response to
the growing Zika crisis.
The administration requested funding 7 months ago, and the Republican
majority has refused to consider legislation that would adequately
address the seriousness of this situation. Due to Republican inaction,
the administration has been forced to repurpose nearly $600 million
dedicated to other pressing public health needs to stem the growing
tide of this disaster. Guess what. That money is about to run out, and
there are now nearly 17,000 cases of Zika in the United States and
territories. As CDC Director Frieden said, ``The cupboard is bare.''
The time for half measures and political posturing has long since
passed. The time to act is now.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I again appeal to the
leadership of this House: Do something. Do something that will help
somebody in this country.
I get it. Elections are coming up, and everybody is engaged in
political posturing. You know, we were elected to actually try to help
people and help solve problems.
I have to tell you, by any objective measure, the leadership of this
House has failed. I mean, it has failed on Flint. It has failed on the
Zika crisis. It has failed on gun violence. It has failed on
confronting this opiate crisis. I can go on and on and on again. I can
point to 70-plus times that we voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
All of these messaging bills that were written in the basement of the
Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, I guess you go back home
and brag about those things, but at the end of the day, you haven't
done anything.
I hope that in these few weeks that we are back before we recess
again that maybe some common sense can prevail on the Republican side
and we can actually do something, something that will help all of our
constituents, especially with this Zika crisis. This is a crisis. If
that doesn't compel everybody to do something to provide the funding
necessary to combat it, I mean, given what we have seen, then I don't
know what will move my Republican colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question, and then vote ``no'' on this rule to consider a bill
that, quite frankly, is going nowhere and is a waste of our time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
It is fairly amazing to me that we can actually find agreement, that
we agree that this should not be happening. The gentleman from
Massachusetts made this statement several times, and he said ``this
bill is going nowhere.'' I would just ask him, Mr. Speaker, why not? If
we want to find agreement and move forward, then, why not?

Why wouldn't a bill brought forward by this Congress that addresses a
bipartisan issue of Republican and Democrat abuses to a Department of
Justice settlement program, why shouldn't it move forward? Instead of
saying it is a waste of time, instead of saying it is something we are
just doing to get along and to not address real issues, this is a real
issue. Why don't we move it forward? Instead, we will posture. We will
vote ``no,'' and we will complain about what we don't want to have. Why
not move it forward?
We have heard from my friends across the aisle, the ones who came,
two witnesses, that we agree on this. It should not be happening.
Instead, this is a big issue. In fact, I believe it is the one issue
right now that is percolating not only in our Presidential elections,
but in our congressional elections. It is in our Senatorial elections.
It is in our State elections.
It is this understanding of the American people that right now
government is not working. Government is broken, the government that
they grew up going to school with. As school has started back over the
last month in Georgia--my home State, Mr. Speaker, and yours--up to New
York where it starts tomorrow, they go to social studies and they learn
about the Founders and they learn about the Constitution and they learn
about three branches of government and how Congress does the bills and
the appropriating and how the executive branch carries those
instructions out and how the judiciary comports that to the
constitutionality of what we do.
I cannot think of a better way than to live within those Founders'
framework and to say, ``Why isn't this bill going somewhere?'' instead
of Congress sitting back and letting the executive branch do whatever
it wants to do, however it wants to do it just because they throw a
tantrum because they don't get their way.
The bill does not protect people from getting away from the law. The
bill does not keep people from being prosecuted. The bill does not keep
punitive damages. Just go through the long list of what they have said,
the list of horribles, that this would not do. It does not. It simply
says you can't stroke your pet projects with money from ``mandatory
donations,'' either side, Republican or Democrat.
So tell me again, Mr. Speaker, why shouldn't this bill go forward? We
will have time to debate the rest. Well, why shouldn't this bill go
forward? Because it hits at the very frustration of the American people
right now because what they see is not what they learned in those
classrooms years ago. What they see is an executive branch that

[[Page H5117]]

does whatever it wants to do, sometimes under both parties. They see a
Congress that doesn't stand up for itself.
As far as I am concerned, this Member will stand up for this
institution and for the role that the Founders laid out for us. So H.R.
5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, does what it says it will
do, and I am proud to cosponsor this bill.
There are many things we get a chance to vote for. We can complain or
we can vote. My recommendation is vote to move this forward. Vote
``yes'' on this rule. Vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. Instead of
saying it ain't going anywhere, then grab a hold of the shovel and say
let's try and make something work in this country.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 843 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
5044) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2016
to respond to Zika virus. 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 among
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Appropriations and the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Budget. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 5044.

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. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 177, not voting 23, as follows:

[Roll No. 481]

YEAS--231

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
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 (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)
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
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
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
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
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--177

[[Page H5118]]

Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
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
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
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
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--23

Bishop (UT)
Boustany
Brown (FL)
Calvert
Clawson (FL)
DesJarlais
Duckworth
Gohmert
Graves (LA)
Johnson, Sam
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
McKinley
Nugent
Palazzo
Price (NC)
Reichert
Ross
Rush
Russell
Sanchez, Loretta
Sinema
Valadao

{time} 1346

Mr. MOULTON, Mrs. DINGELL, and Mr. ELLISON changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 481, I was
detained discussing flood recovery efforts in Louisiana. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. VALADAO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 481 I missed the vote
because my meeting with constituents about very important
transportation, agriculture, air quality, and grant issues went longer
than scheduled. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall Vote No. 481 on
the previous question, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yea'' when I
should have voted ``nay.''

{time} 1345

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Graves of Louisiana was allowed to speak
out of order.)

Moment of Silence for Victims of Louisiana Floods

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, for the last 2 weeks, many
across our Nation have been preparing the children for school. They
have been preparing to end their summer vacation.
In our home State of Louisiana, nearly 500,000 of our citizens have
been affected by a 1,000-year flood event, causing extraordinary ruin
for our families and businesses, everything inundated. Everything that
people own--family heirlooms, photo albums, hard disk drives, and
generations of work--has been destroyed. We lost 13 of our fellow
citizens, at least, with more perhaps to be found.
Today, hundreds of thousands across south Louisiana are sifting
through what remains of their belongings, facing imminent and
extraordinary financial decisions and life-altering decisions. We stand
here in this Chamber today, as their representatives, and ask you to
join us in a moment of silence and to keep them in our prayers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will stand for a moment of silence.
Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
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 will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 178, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 482]

AYES--231

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
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)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
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
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
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
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NOES--178

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
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.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
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
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
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
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz

[[Page H5119]]

Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--22

Barletta
Boustany
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Calvert
Clawson (FL)
DesJarlais
Duckworth
Hurt (VA)
Johnson, Sam
Lieu, Ted
McKinley
Nugent
Palazzo
Price (NC)
Reichert
Rooney (FL)
Ross
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Sinema
Waters, Maxine

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1355

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. ROONEY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 482, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 482, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall
Vote No. 482 On Agreeing to the Resolution Providing for consideration
of H.R. 5063, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2016. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yes.''

____________________