PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 244, HONORING INVESTMENTS IN RECRUITING AND EMPLOYING AMERICAN MILITARY VETERANS ACT OF 2017; Congressional Record Vol. 163, No. 76
(House of Representatives - May 03, 2017)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H3080-H3089]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 244, HONORING 
INVESTMENTS IN RECRUITING AND EMPLOYING AMERICAN MILITARY VETERANS ACT 
                                OF 2017

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 305 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 305

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 244) 
     to encourage effective, voluntary investments to recruit, 
     employ, and retain men and women who have served in the 
     United States military with annual Federal awards to 
     employers recognizing such efforts, and for other purposes, 
     with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the 
     House, without intervention of any point of order, a single 
     motion offered by the chair of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the 
     Senate amendments numbered 2 and 3, and that the House concur 
     in the Senate amendment numbered 1 with an amendment 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-16 
     modified by the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate 
     amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 2.  The chair of the Committee on Appropriations may 
     insert in the Congressional Record not later than May 3, 
     2017, such material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate 
     amendments and the motion specified in the first section of 
     this resolution.
       Sec. 3.  The chair of the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence may insert in the Congressional Record not later 
     than May 3, 2017, such material as he may deem explanatory of 
     intelligence authorization measures for the fiscal year 2017.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my 
friend, 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. COLE. 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 Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported 
a rule for consideration of two very important measures. First, the 
resolution provides for consideration of Senate amendments to H.R. 244, 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee. In addition, the resolution provides for consideration of 
the FY 2017 Intelligence Authorization Act as an amendment to the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us is the first 
successful bicameral, bipartisan negotiation of the Trump 
administration. It has broad bipartisan support in both Houses of 
Congress. All Members can feel good about the work of the 
Appropriations Committee, especially our chairman, Mr. Frelinghuysen of 
New Jersey, and our Ranking Member, Mrs. Lowey of New York. In the 
House, the work must continue today but, hopefully, will be concluded 
today.
  The package in front of us not only keeps the government open and 
operating through the end of the fiscal year, but it also represents a 
successful completion of key member priorities on both sides of the 
aisle.
  This bill provides for a $25.7 billion increase in defense spending, 
notably including an additional $7.3 billion for Department of Defense 
readiness and training, as well as the largest pay raise our troops 
have received in 6 years. These funds will help us enhance our military 
readiness and marks an end to the erosion of our national military 
strength.
  Importantly, we accomplished this without a dollar-for-dollar 
increase in nondefense discretionary spending, a practice which was 
imposed upon us by the previous administration. That practice 
threatened to drive our national deficit even higher. I am pleased that 
we broke that connection, for we should never operate under such a 
formula in the future.
  This measure also provides for an increase of $1.5 billion in funding 
for border security. $772 million is available for key administration 
priorities like border security technology enhancements and 
infrastructure improvements. It also increases funding for Customs and 
Border Patrol to improve operational effectiveness. And, I note, the 
President has wide authority and latitude to deploy these dollars where

[[Page H3081]]

they should do the most good. This is the largest increase in border 
security funding in almost a decade.
  Domestically, this bill funds hundreds, if not thousands, of Member 
priorities. We reached a bipartisan agreement on opioid funding, 
redirecting over $500 million to combat this epidemic affecting every 
district in the Nation. We funded health care for miners, a key 
priority for many of our Members.
  We secured the second consecutive $2 billion increase for the 
National Institutes of Health, the Nation's lead biomedical research 
organization and a key driver of the hope of treating new diseases, 
saving countless lives, and, incidentally, driving down healthcare 
costs.
  We also secured an increase for the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, which will help enhance our readiness to combat pandemics 
and respond to public health crises.
  We increased funding for GEAR UP and TRIO, two essential programs 
that help first-generation college students actually go to college, and 
increased funding for Head Start by $90 million. Every Member of this 
House has a victory someplace in this bill, and this was done, Mr. 
Speaker, by cutting spending in other less essential areas and making 
tough choices.
  In the Labor-H provisions of this bill, for instance, we actually 
spend $2.8 billion less than President Obama requested, and $1 billion 
less than we actually spent last year.
  Finally, and most importantly, this bill is the product of a 
successful bipartisan, bicameral negotiation. This shows all of us that 
we have the ability for the President, the Republicans in the House and 
the Senate, and the Democrats in the House and the Senate to sit down 
and work together on important issues. I am heartened by this success, 
and I believe it suggests our ability to work together in the future on 
other crucially important pieces of legislation like tax reform and 
infrastructure improvements.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017. As you know, this 
$1 trillion omnibus will provide discretionary funding for most of the 
Federal Government for the remaining 5 months of fiscal year 2017.
  Before moving to the specifics of the legislation, we need to get a 
few things straight. It bears repeating that the appropriations 
measures contained in this bill should have been passed months ago. 
While I am glad that we have arrived at this compromise, and the words 
of my good friend from Oklahoma, I certainly support with regard to the 
extraordinary work of the chairman and the ranking member, and their 
respective staffs, as well as all the appropriators, generally, and 
their staffs, they have done a good job with reference to the measure, 
as far as compromise is concerned.
  But the fact remains that the bill is 7 months late. The House 
Committee on Appropriations is already hard at work for fiscal year 
2018, and yet this body is still trying to fund programs for the 
current fiscal year. The root cause of this disarray does not lie with 
the Appropriations Committee but with the majority's leadership, or 
lack thereof, in this Congress and in the White House.

                              {time}  1245

  I also need to level another critique at my friends across the aisle 
who have time and again brought us to the brink of a government 
shutdown. We needed months of negotiations and three continuing 
resolutions to keep the government funded. Much of the time, poison 
pill riders gummed up the works. Among other things, the majority 
continuously tries to strip funding from women's healthcare 
organizations, slash environmental protections, and end protections for 
Federal employees through the appropriations process.
  Well, here we are, Mr. Speaker, 7 months later, with a bill that does 
none of these things. Yet we do it again and again, lurching from 
manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis. I said yesterday or the day 
before in the Rules Committee that we will be back here with a stopgap 
measure and repeat this same crisis routine that we have done for many 
of the years that I have had the privilege of serving in this body. Mr. 
Speaker, maybe next time we will skip the grandstanding and start off 
with a commonsense measure from the get-go.
  This brings me to the bill itself. The measure includes $1.07 
trillion in base discretionary budget authority, including $551 billion 
in base defense spending, $518.5 billion in base nondefense spending, 
$62.1 billion in overseas contingency operations defense spending, and 
$16.5 billion in overseas contingency operations nondefense spending. 
More than 160 partisan toxic riders were floated but kept out of the 
legislation.
  Despite Donald John Trump's insistence on draconian cuts, the omnibus 
includes $1.2 billion in additional nondefense budget authority. It 
provides funding to alleviate Puerto Rico's emergency budget shortfall 
and their underfunded Medicaid program. It increases funding for the 
National Institutes of Health by $2 billion. It provides $1.1 billion 
in disaster assistance for regions affected by storms and flooding in 
2015 and 2016, and it includes $900 million in humanitarian assistance 
to alleviate international famine.
  Toward that end, with reference to famine in the world, we are 
witnessing a rising number of countries that are experiencing famine. 
Without identifying them all, it is estimated that some 20 million 
people in the world are at risk of dying from starvation. In this 
country, too many people are in a position of being hungry during the 
course of a day. In the land of plenty, we can do better.
  In this vein, I was pleased to see the inclusion of language that 
will positively impact the district that I serve and every other 
district that faces the threat of natural disasters. Toward that end, 
my good friend from Oklahoma is absolutely correct. In the compromise 
measure, there are some things that will impact all of our districts, 
and that is, in my judgment, as it should be.
  Additionally, I am one of few Members around here who continuously 
argues that Members should have earmark responsibilities so that they 
can be held accountable for things that are vital in their districts 
rather than allowing the bureaucracy to dominate that sphere.
  The language clarifies a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
codifying the Department of Labor's views on lifting the work 
restrictions on insurance claims adjusters responding to disasters. 
When a natural disaster strikes, like a hurricane or a wildfire, 
insurance adjusters are there to help those affected piece their lives 
back together and get back on their feet. By ensuring that adjusters 
can quickly and readily respond to disasters, this codification helps 
them complete their important work.
  I did say in the Rules Committee, and I have said for 20 years here, 
that this Congress needs a disaster relief committee that is 
constituted of all of the chairs of the committees of jurisdiction. It 
is not complicated. It is something that is done in other countries so 
that when these disasters occur--be they fire, flood, hurricane, 
tornado, or any disaster--we can respond more quickly than we do now, 
rather than allowing for the residual remains of the kinds of disasters 
that we experience in this country.
  Just this past weekend, at least 16 lives were lost and many people 
were injured in tornadic activity in the States of Alabama, 
Mississippi, and Arkansas and floods in Missouri, and we need to 
respond to those.
  Additionally, something else that I want to say that I consider to be 
important are the responsibilities of FEMA. While I believe they do an 
extraordinary job with what they are allowed to work with, I don't know 
what it takes to get across to people that FEMA can only react when 
there are a certain number of people that have lost their homes. Please 
know this: when 1 person loses their home to a natural disaster, it is 
just as important as if 1,000 or 100,000 lost their home; and we,

[[Page H3082]]

this Congress, need to be able to respond to that 1 the same way we do 
to 1,000.
  Furthermore, I was glad to see that the bill includes year-round Pell 
grants to provide 1 million students in this country with an additional 
average award of $1,650, and it permanently extends health insurance 
benefits for retired mineworkers.
  I might add that that has been and will continue to be a bipartisan 
effort to provide for the health of those mineworkers. Hopefully, in 
spite of all the talk coming out of the White House, we may, one day, 
find a way to help those that have lost their jobs because of the 
industrial changes transition to good jobs.
  But what is included in this bill is just as important as what is 
not. In his first major budget negotiation, Donald John Trump made many 
demands that were defeated. He requested $30 billion in additional 
defense spending and $3 billion to fund construction of a U.S.-Mexico 
border wall and is around crowing that there is money in this bill to 
do something about the wall, and there is not.
  The President wanted policy riders to restrict sanctuary cities from 
receiving Federal grants. He wanted to defund Planned Parenthood and 
undermine health care. As I have already said, there were 160 riders 
that were floated here in this measure but are not included.
  Rather than governing responsibly, Donald John Trump and the House 
Freedom Caucus have spent a good deal of time and energy pushing 
partisan interests, from repealing health care to gutting the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the 
Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and successful 
programs like community development block grants. All of these programs 
are fully funded in this measure.
  As the President gets cozy with authoritarian strongmen around the 
world and revisits the history of the Civil War--and for your 
information, Donald Trump, it was slavery that caused the war--Congress 
has stepped up and asserted itself, and I am glad.
  I have said repeatedly that the legislative branch has given too much 
authority not to this President but to the one before him, the one 
before him, and the one before that one. We have continuously ceded our 
authority. So it is understood by virtue of this action and, I hope, 
future action that the legislature is an equal branch of our 
government, and we need to act like it.
  Funding the government is one of the most important responsibilities 
Congress has. There are, undeniably, differences in policy priorities 
between Members in this body, Democrats and Republicans, and 
differences between Democrats and differences between Republicans in 
this body, but holding the Federal budget hostage is not the way to 
work through these problems. This measure is a responsible compromise 
that serves the interests of the American public, and that is what we 
came here to do.
  My good friend from Oklahoma, last night in the Rules Committee, said 
that the people that win in this measure are the American people, and I 
agree with him. That is why I was even dismayed and, quite frankly, 
disturbed at the irresponsible comment that Donald John Trump tweeted 
yesterday morning that what this country needs is ``a good shutdown'' 
in September.
  I made it a point, when we were in the Rules Committee, to ask the 
fine young gentleman that works with me to learn the context because I 
just can't believe that this man comes out and says that this 
institution needs to have ``a good shutdown.''
  Donald John Trump, there is no such thing as a good shutdown.
  The President champions a government shutdown not only to his but to 
his party's peril. The hardworking and working poor Americans are at 
peril with that kind of undertaking. He does so to the peril of our men 
and women fighting overseas, to the peril of working families and their 
health care, to education, and to safe, clean, and secure communities.
  Donald John Trump may think he can run the country on Twitter while 
daydreaming of taxpayer-funded jaunts to his private golf club, but he 
needs to wise up. We don't need a good shutdown. We need a good leader. 
If he continues and isn't prepared to get serious, then he needs to get 
out of the way.
  As my colleague Congressman McGovern said yesterday, rather than a 
shutdown, the President ought to shut his mouth. I will put it another 
way from the vernacular: zip his lip, put that Twitter off somewhere on 
the side and let birds tweet while he talks sensibly to the American 
people.
  Maybe the President thinks that if the government shuts down people 
suddenly don't need to pay taxes and that national parks become free. 
Maybe he thinks that if the government shuts down--if we have a good 
government shutdown--every regulation suddenly stops and corporations 
are free to run wild without complying to clean water or clean air 
standards.
  I don't know what he is thinking. I don't think anybody else around 
here knows what he is thinking. I am not even certain he knows what he 
is thinking. And to be honest, I would be afraid to see what is going 
on in his head.
  But here is what I do know. According to the financial ratings agency 
Standard & Poor's, the 2013 government shutdown cost the United 
States--the American people--$24 billion. According to a report from 
the Council of Economic Advisers, it sidetracked the creation of as 
many as 120,000 jobs.
  I hope you are listening, Donald John Trump, because these aren't 
alternative facts.
  The furloughs amounted to more than 5.5 million days' worth of 
Federal employment lost spread across dozens of agencies. Businesses 
that relied on tourism lost out on more than a half-billion dollars. 
The Small Business Administration couldn't process some 700 
applications for $140 million in small businesses loans.

                              {time}  1300

  According to the U.S. Travel Association, the 16-day shutdown cost 
$152 million per day in lost travel spending. According to CNBC, 2 
weeks into the latest shutdown, the Internal Revenue Service reported a 
backlog of 1.2 million verification requests that could not be 
processed.
  Mr. Speaker, we don't need a good government shutdown. We don't need 
a shutdown at all. We just got through a 7-month negotiation to keep 
the government open.
  Naturally, the media picked up on the fact that Donald John Trump got 
virtually none of his priorities. When the report started to air, he 
threw a political temper tantrum and took to Twitter to undermine the 
compromise.
  I will be honest at this point: it is nothing new, so it shouldn't 
surprise anyone; nor should the backlash that ensued or his sudden 
change of heart. In just a few hours, Donald John Trump went from 
condemning the deal and whining about the rules of the Senate to 
hailing it as a great compromise. I must have missed that chapter in 
his ``The Art of the Deal.''
  So let's leave it at this: we need to do more, not less, to 
strengthen our communities and help working families. I urge President 
Donald John Trump to move past the campaign rhetoric and get serious.
  I hope you are listening, sir, because you can put that in a tweet.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.
  Also, Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities 
toward the President.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To respond to a few of my friend's points, Mr. Speaker, I want to 
begin by agreeing with my friend, actually.
  As he knows, I agree with his point that this should have been done 
many months ago, and could have been done, in my view, many months ago. 
We should have done this in December. I don't think we did the country 
or ourselves or the President any favors by delaying that. So my friend 
is right about that decision, and I hope we all learn a lesson from it.
  I also agree with my friend that, because we delayed, the 2018 
appropriations process will be extremely difficult and truncated. It 
will make work harder. We may find ourselves back here in a number of 
months asking for

[[Page H3083]]

some brief extension as we continue to work through our problems. I 
hope not, but my friend's observation on that point I agree with.
  I want to disagree with my friend pretty strongly about his 
observation about the 160 riders that we decided in the negotiation not 
to press, and I want to explain why we decided not to press them.
  Frankly, we don't need to press them anymore. Almost 160 of those 
were designed to limit or reverse rulings of the last administration--
either rules or executive decisions. Well, Mr. Trump is now the 
President of the United States and he is going to have the ability to 
do almost all of those things on his own. He doesn't need legislative 
instruction from us. He will certainly get support as he works through 
that list with the executive branch, which he runs.
  I also want to add, just to clarify, it is important to note that 
there is nothing in this bill that funds Planned Parenthood in any way, 
shape, or form. As a matter of fact, there is a family planning title 
and grants are awarded out of that title by the Department of Health 
and Human Services.
  Sometimes in the past, Planned Parenthood has received money in those 
grants. Now there is new management at the Department of Health and 
Human Services, so we will see how this goes. This Congress has never 
appropriated money directly to Planned Parenthood and, frankly, I 
suspect never will.
  Finally, in defense of the President, I want to point out that we are 
adding billions of dollars to defense of this country, which is 
desperately needed because, frankly, his predecessor had allowed it 
to erode. That is because of the President's leadership.

  We are making the most substantial investments in border security in 
a decade. That is because of the President's leadership.
  Finally, we have broken this terrible one-for-one formula that the 
last administration imposed on us. In other words, to defend the United 
States of America, we had to spend more money domestically, whether we 
needed to or not, whether we could afford it or not. If it weren't for 
President Trump, that formula would still be in existence and we would 
be frittering away money in places where we don't need it and denying 
support to our troops and our forces in the field when they desperately 
need it. I am very grateful to the President for making that possible. 
Again, with his leadership, it could not have occurred.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Byrne), my good friend, a fellow Rules Committee member, and also a 
distinguished member of the House Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I 
appreciate his leadership to get us here both on the Rules Committee 
and the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, despite what you may hear in the media, this funding 
bill is a positive step forward for the American people and a big win 
for the Trump administration. I want to highlight a few reasons why.
  First, delivering on President Trump's promise, this bill makes long 
overdue and much-needed investments in our military. The bill boosts 
military spending by $21 billion, which will help boost military 
readiness and fund the largest pay raise for our troops in 6 years.
  Importantly, the bill finally rejects demands of Democrats to only 
increase defense spending if all other spending is also increased. This 
bill ends that harmful precedent.
  The bill devotes important new funding for border security. In fact, 
it contains the biggest increase in border security funding in almost a 
decade. This will allow us to make improvements to the wall at the 
border, put more Customs and Border Protection agents on the ground, 
and end the disastrous practice of ``catch and release.''
  The bill includes important pro-life protections to ensure taxpayer 
money is not used to fund abortions. Just as important, the bill does 
not contain a penny of funding for Planned Parenthood. I am going to 
say it again: there is not a penny in here for Planned Parenthood.
  The bill includes important Second Amendment protections, increases 
funding to help fight crime, supports funding for Israel, provides 
money for missile defense, and sets aside additional resources to 
defeat ISIS.
  Even more, the bill cuts funding to the EPA, freezes funding for the 
IRS, and reduces the Federal Government's role in education.
  Finally, the bill makes progress and priorities important to my folks 
in southwest Alabama. For example, the bill fully funds three littoral 
combat ships, which are built, in part, by Austal USA in Mobile. These 
ships are critical to the United States Navy and are necessary if we 
are to reach the 355-ship fleet that President Trump wants. This 
funding bill will ensure we continue to build these first class vessels 
in Mobile.
  The bill also includes a provision important to our red snapper 
fishermen. With the help of Senator Richard Shelby, we were able to 
secure a permanent expansion of State waters out to nine nautical 
miles.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect--no compromise ever is--but I 
commend President Trump in negotiating a good bill to begin the process 
of implementing the priorities the American people sent him and us to 
Washington to accomplish.
  President Trump has called on Congress to pass this funding bill 
while we work to make even more progress in the upcoming fiscal year 
2018 funding negotiations. I intend to do just that, and I call on my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I am glad to support President Trump, this rule, and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to advise how 
much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 11 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, news flash here for those that might have been trying to 
make plans for leaving here tomorrow morning: it appears that House 
Republicans are intent on trying to bring TrumpCare back to life.
  The Republican healthcare bill was bad the first time, bad the second 
time, and its latest iteration is even worse. In addition to kicking 24 
million people off their health coverage, gutting Medicaid in order to 
give a trillion-dollar tax cut--mostly to the richest Americans--and 
dismantling the requirement to provide the essential health benefits, 
the latest proposal completely guts protections for people with 
preexisting conditions and imposes an unlimited age tax on older 
Americans.
  Now we see in the press that the Republican leadership is trying to 
cut yet another backroom deal on expensive, high-risk pools to try and 
muster enough votes to pass this monstrosity.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has not gone through regular order from the 
start. There have been no hearings. There is no CBO score. We are 
reading in the press that even more changes are on the horizon.
  I wish I could start reading in the press or looking at television 
and just have people that have the responsibility and leadership to 
inform those of us that are in the minority just what the plan really 
constitutes and when it will be put forward. Every single Member in 
this institution should be as outraged as I am, regardless of party. 
This is a bill that will affect every American.
  Therefore, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an 
amendment to the rule that would change the rules of the House to 
prevent any healthcare-related legislation from being considered if it 
does not have a CBO cost estimate; or if it would deny health coverage 
or require higher premiums due to preexisting conditions; impose 
lifetime limits on health coverage; prevent individuals under age 26 
from being covered under their parents' plans; reduce the number of 
people receiving health care under the Affordable Care Act; increase 
costs to seniors by reopening the doughnut hole and raising 
prescription drug costs; require people to pay for preventive services, 
including cancer screening; reduce Medicare solvency or change the 
Medicare guarantee; or reduce Federal taxes on the 1 percent of the 
population with the highest incomes or increase taxes on the 80 percent 
of hardworking Americans earning moderate to low income.

[[Page H3084]]

  Every American deserves affordable, high-quality health care. This 
amendment would ensure that the Republican bill can't sacrifice that 
goal in favor of giving tax cuts to the wealthy.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, to discuss the proposal.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Judge Hastings for yielding.
  The previous question I offer with Congresswoman Slaughter would 
prevent any legislation from being considered if the legislation would 
deny coverage or require higher premiums for preexisting conditions, 
increase costs for seniors for prescription drugs, or reduce Medicare 
solvency.
  I have listened to the previous three speakers on the Republican side 
talk about national defense. That is understandable, but might we, for 
the purpose of this discussion, also acknowledge the following: real 
national defense also means providing health security for members of 
American families. That is part of the balance that we should be 
recognizing.
  The priorities on the other side are the following: they are going to 
turn the issue of preexisting condition back to a voluntary nature at 
the State level.
  As one who comes from local government, we should recognize the 
following: every time there is an economic downturn, you can be certain 
that Governors are going to use the money that was intended for health 
care to balance the budgets, and they are going to call it good 
management.
  They are undermining the health security of the American people with 
their proposal on TrumpCare.

                              {time}  1315

  They have been threatening to eliminate coverage for millions of 
Americans for years, and now they are telling us they are on the eve of 
accomplishing just that.
  But what does it mean for the American family? They want to go back 
to the days when you could be denied routine health insurance because 
you might have been born with diabetes, you might have had a liver 
transplant in midlife, you might have had a diagnosis of cancer in 
midlife, and you can no longer be insured despite the fact that you 
have spent a lifetime paying those premiums? And we are going to make 
this an option of the States to decide? This is going backwards on the 
issue of health security.
  But that is not enough, as we know. They also are going to ask you to 
pay more for hospital care, more for prescription drugs, more for 
mental health and substance abuse treatment, more for pediatric care, 
and certainly more for cancer care. And they are going to call this an 
improvement in health care delivery?
  Well, their recent improvements have made it clear. Let's not forget 
the previous bill had an underlying $1 trillion tax giveaway that would 
drain $75 billion from the Medicare trust fund and cut $840 billion 
from Medicaid, all for the purpose of providing a $1 trillion tax cut 
to the people at the very top.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Massachusetts 
an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. NEAL. Fewer covered, higher costs, and fewer protections for the 
American family. The previous question that Louise Slaughter and I are 
going to offer is the following:
  We would prevent any of this legislation that is proposed that would 
be considered harmful to the consumers, as the Republican bill is. 
Americans need assurance about health care and, by the way, some 
predictability.
  During my time of service here, I have seen how difficult it is to do 
health insurance. I think there is only one person in Washington, by 
the way, who said: Who knew health insurance could be this complicated?
  Well, for those of us who have served here for any extended period of 
time, I can assure you, we all knew that health care was complicated in 
terms of delivery and economic consequence. But that is not enough for 
our friends today. They want to change the basic tenet of the guarantee 
of ending preexisting conditions.
  I had a Republican friend I talked to yesterday. He said: I wish I 
was still back in the House because I would vote against that bill. He 
said: My daughter had a liver transplant, and now they are saying, with 
preexisting conditions, it is going to be up to the Governor of a State 
to decide whether or not she can continue to get care? We need the 
guarantee of Medicare coupled with the expansion of Medicaid, which has 
now offered insurance to 24 million Americans that didn't have 
insurance prior to the Affordable Care Act.
  I would say this as well. And remember, half of that number, that is 
private insurance. We kept the private sector alive for the purpose of 
offering discipline to price. It has accomplished that. Healthcare 
spending in America has plateaued.
  But, again, on this occasion, we won't let the facts get in the way 
of a rigid ideology that says we need to change the Affordable Care Act 
because Barack Obama offered it. That is what the test is now for the 
American people: Who sponsored legislation?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. NEAL. We have debated health care since Harry Truman was 
President. We have debated health care since Lyndon Johnson offered 
Medicare and Medicaid. Bob Dole and Mitt Romney and Richard Nixon all 
understood you needed the mandate to provide health care to all members 
of the American family. They are going to shun that today and tomorrow 
by turning their backs on preexisting conditions. Remember, real 
national defense also means providing health care for members of the 
American family.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I go to my next speaker, I want to take a moment to respond to 
my friends.
  Mr. Speaker, I actually came here to debate the appropriations bill, 
which is a great bipartisan compromise, but I am always happy to engage 
in the healthcare debate as well, if that is what my friends choose to 
do. I am happy to do it because I remember the conditions under which 
ObamaCare was passed.
  I remember the promises that we would save $2,500 a family--not true.
  I remember, if you liked your plan, you could keep it--not true.
  I remember, if you liked your doctor, you could keep that 
individual--not true.
  This was sold, frankly, on a tissue of fabrications and some 
predictions that were outlandishly false.
  Those people who say this is a good system, come to my State. We are 
down to a single provider--one. That provider, by the way, I always say 
thank God for them, because they are losing money. We are down to one. 
Our rates are going up 69 percent.
  So anybody who thinks this is a successful system should go look at 
it. If it were successful, my friends would probably still be in the 
majority instead of the minority. It has not been successful. The 
American people have, in election after election, rendered a verdict 
that this particular system is not meeting their needs, and it badly 
needs to be overhauled and changed, if not rooted out completely.
  Frankly, again, as, I think, through the President's actions and what 
my colleagues in the leadership of my party are doing, I am very glad 
they are working overtime right now to try and make sure that we have 
something better for the American people than my friends delivered on 
the other side of the aisle when they had the opportunity to do so. It 
is not working.
  I hope very much we have to cancel travel plans so the next day or 
two we can actually vote on this. I would be ecstatic to do that. So, 
again, I would be happy to debate that. When the time comes, we will. 
But I look forward to engaging in that debate because I am absolutely 
convinced we can do a lot better for the American people than we

[[Page H3085]]

did when ObamaCare was passed, and we can implement something a lot 
better for the American people than we did when it was rolled out. And 
we certainly can avoid some of the catastrophic consequences.
  As for my friend's concerns about preexisting conditions, frankly, 
they are not going to be reversed, but I happen to live in a State 
where I trust my Governor and my legislature to make smart decisions. 
Frankly, I trust them a lot more than I do anybody in Washington, D.C., 
to understand what is going on in my State. I suspect most people in 
here actually trust their Governors and their legislature to be more in 
touch with the needs of their people than anybody in Washington, D.C., 
happens to be, so I am happy to see a devolution of decisionmaking from 
Washington to other parts of the country. As I read the Constitution, 
we call that federalism. It has worked very well for the American 
people for almost 240 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Fourth 
District of Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar), my good friend in his second 
term, but a new member of the Committee on Appropriations. I am very 
glad to have him on my Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, and Related Agencies.
  Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Cole, Chairman 
Frelinghuysen, and the entire Committee on Appropriations, as well as 
the President and congressional leaders in both the House and the 
Senate for their work on this bipartisan appropriations bill.
  This legislation is not perfect, but it addresses many priorities for 
the people of Michigan and the United States. It funds the Great Lakes 
Restoration Initiative, which protects the Great Lakes. It instructs 
the Army Corps of Engineers to turn over its report on stopping Asian 
carp from invading the Great Lakes.
  It funds important scientific research at Michigan State University, 
and it continues support for vaccines against emerging threats. It also 
commits funding for cures research at the National Institutes of 
Health, including the fight against Alzheimer's, so we can work on 
stopping this nefarious disease that steals golden years from our 
seniors.
  For the rural communities in my district, this legislation increases 
funding for rural development grants and the Farm Service Agency.
  This legislation promotes border security and integrity, providing 
more money for Customs and Border Patrol and increasing the number of 
Border Patrol agents hired.
  This legislation will ensure that our men and women in uniform have 
the resources they need to keep us safe from threats, including North 
Korea, Russia, Iran, and ISIS.
  This legislation makes important cuts, including eliminating wasteful 
funding for U.N. programs that overreach and run counter to the ideals 
of our country.
  Finally, this legislation extends prohibitions on funding for 
abortion that have been in place for years.
  This legislation addresses many important priorities for the people 
of Michigan and our entire Nation, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my friend.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the omnibus 
spending agreement that is before us today, which will finally fund the 
government for the remainder of fiscal year 2017. The bill before us is 
not a perfect bill, but it represents a good bipartisan compromise.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to engage in good faith discussions about our 
values and priorities, not participate in posturing to social media. It 
is my hope that my congressional colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
will continue the constructive tone that this agreement represents.
  This fiscal year 2017 agreement delivers on many priorities important 
to Rhode Island. It restores the year-round Pell Grant Program or 
summer Pell eligibility, allowing summer students to receive Pell grant 
funds to help them finish their degrees on time.
  Rather than slash funding as the President had requested, this 
compromise also adds $2 billion in funding to the National Institutes 
of Health, which conducts vital research in our efforts to treat and 
cure catastrophic diseases and drives innovative economic development.
  On the defense side, this agreement funds vital national security 
programs, including the continued procurement of Virginia class 
submarines and ongoing development of the new Columbia class, work that 
I am proud to say happens at Quonset Point in my district.
  I want to thank all those involved in these negotiations on both 
sides of the aisle for their commitment to achieving a good faith 
compromise that will keep the government open and working for the 
American people. I hope we can continue on a similar bipartisan 
agreement as we plan for the next fiscal year.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), my very good friend and my fellow member of 
the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to rise in strong support of 
this rule and the underlying legislation, which is the product of a lot 
of effort on the part of a lot of people on a very bipartisan basis.
  I would first like to thank and congratulate our distinguished chair 
and ranking members for their work on the 2017 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act and for their leadership in bringing this 
legislation forward today to address a number of timely issues facing 
our Nation.
  I certainly want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Cole, to my immediate 
left for his strong work on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education and Related Agencies bill, which I will mention at 
some point here as well, but his leadership has been extraordinary on 
this issue.
  I would like to draw special attention to some of this legislation's 
provisions that will further support our veterans and enhance our 
military's readiness.
  Division L of the underlying bill provides supplemental funding to 
augment the appropriations that were provided to MILCON and the VA 
accounts, military construction and the VA accounts, last September.
  Specifically, this bill will allow us to further address the opioid 
epidemic that has escalated within so many communities across the 
country and affected individuals and families from a broad range of 
backgrounds and professions.
  The 2017 bill will provide $50 million in additional current-year 
funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve opioid and 
substance abuse prevention and treatment for veterans. Those funds will 
allow the VA to achieve full implementation of their responsibilities 
under title IX of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016.
  I just raised this issue less than an hour ago with VA Secretary 
David Shulkin in this morning's hearing. He stressed the importance of 
these funds to stay ahead of this challenge and provide comprehensive 
treatments to our veterans. It is my hope that the lessons learned from 
this public health crisis will be remembered so that we can prevent 
similar episodes from occurring in the future.
  In addition, the FY17 Consolidated Appropriations Act will support 
readiness and infrastructure improvements and facilitate future force 
structure growth by providing all our military services with the full 
amount requested for military construction efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with so many of my colleagues from both sides of 
the aisle that we need to make investments in our military readiness. I 
would like to stress that the investments in the infrastructure and 
military construction programs that support our troops at home and 
abroad are critical aspects of our overall readiness posture. This bill 
will move us in the right direction by addressing needs for both our 
Active-Duty and our National Guard and Reserve forces.

                              {time}  1330

  I would also like to talk about some other aspects of this 
legislation, too, in the underlying bill. Many pressing needs are 
addressed here.

[[Page H3086]]

  Specifically, we are talking about a very significant pay increase, a 
2.1 percent pay increase for our troops. It is the largest pay increase 
in 6 years.
  This legislation makes a substantial downpayment on our efforts, and 
the Trump administration's efforts, to enhance and increase military 
spending to address the various threats that we are seeing throughout 
the world.
  I just returned from South Korea and Okinawa, Japan, and we have many 
challenges in Northeast Asia, that I won't go into here today. But we 
all know that we have some real obligations, particularly for our 
United States Navy.
  I also wanted to mention, too, my good friend, Chairman Cole. He led 
the effort, along with Senator Roy Blunt, to increase funding for 
medical research, critical lifesaving medical research to the National 
Institutes of Health by $2 billion in this legislation, taking the 
funding level from $32 billion to $34 billion. And that is on top of 
what we heard in fiscal year 2016, which took us up $2 billion, as 
well, from $30 billion to $32 billion.
  So the commitment of this side of the aisle to medical research, I 
think, is strong, and we are backing it up with our dollars. We had to 
set some priorities, and Chairman Cole did that in the labor health 
bill. He set those priorities, and we said: This is one of them. I am 
proud that we as Republicans are stepping up on medical research. I am 
also pleased, too, that many of our Democratic friends are supporting 
this in this effort as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that this 
legislation, in addition to this robust increase for medical research, 
the chairman also provided substantial support for early childhood, a 
priority to him and to many of us.
  And there are other areas, too. Pell grants made some great changes, 
too--year-round Pell grants for so many students who are struggling 
with college affordability.
  I also want to point out, too, on border security, a downpayment has 
been made here as well. This legislation provides $1.5 billion 
additionally for border security. This will help us move closer to 
establishing greater operational control of our border, which is 
something I think we all agree needs to be done.
  These are just a few of the provisions of this legislation beyond 
what I am responsible for--military construction and VA--that are 
worthy.
  I would urge support of this bill. I would also like to point out 
that we did pass the Military Construction and VA Appropriations bill 
back in September on time. It is the first appropriations bill passed 
on time since 2009. I want to take a little credit for that.
  But these other 11 bills that have been discussed here today need our 
support. We need to keep this government running. We have done it in a 
very thoughtful, bipartisan, measured way, and we have been very 
responsible. This bill needs to get to the President's desk 
immediately.
  Again, I urge support for this legislation, and I support the rule as 
well.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close.
  The President has said that Americans would win so much, they would 
be tired of winning. I think for once he and I may be in agreement.
  Today's measure advances medical research, protects coal miners, 
fights back against the opioid epidemic and international disasters, 
and protects funding for science, education, and health care. It should 
not have taken us 7 months to get here. But I hope this measure will 
give the Appropriations Committee a springboard for fiscal year 2018.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank my good friend. It is always a pleasure, honestly, to 
engage in debate with him because it is going to be spirited, but it is 
going to be civil. So I thank my friend for that.
  And, frankly, when my friend points out that he and President Trump 
are actually on the same side for once, I think the second coming may 
not be very far. So we are all in a pretty good mood here.
  But I do want to echo a couple of points that my friend made, and 
made, as always, with great skill. There is a lot in this bill that 
brings us together. This was a product of genuine compromise. We have 
Republicans in the House and Democrats in the House, Republicans in the 
Senate and Democrats in the Senate, and, obviously, the administration. 
It is really a five-corner negotiation.
  I think we ought to step back a little bit and reflect that, in the 
course of that, while all those parties began with very different 
positions, and some verbal fisticuffs, as well, they actually moved 
closer together over the course of discussion. And that has effectively 
meant that we are going to have the first bipartisan, bicameral 
negotiation in this administration that has been successful.
  I would hope it becomes a model for some of the things that lie in 
front of us, things like infrastructure, and like tax reform. I 
recognize we won't always agree. But, to me, this agreement shows that 
we can work towards agreements, if we will sit in good faith and 
compromise with one another.
  I think the President, frankly, did a lot of good things from his 
point of view here. I think the additional money for our men and women 
in uniform, the raise in pay for those we have asked so much from, and 
who have never let us down, is something he can be proud of.

  I think the additional money on the border, where we know we have a 
security problem, we may debate the best way to address that. That is 
fair enough. But that is an achievement that he deserves credit for.
  And I think, frankly, breaking this artificial linkage of domestic 
spending and security spending was something that is really important. 
Sometimes we will actually need more domestically than, perhaps, we 
need in defense. But we are going to have to look at those things 
logically, not create artificial formulas. I actually fear sometimes my 
side might do that in reverse by demanding cuts in exchange for 
military spending when those cuts are, in themselves, not wise.
  Finally, I look at things where we find a lot of common purpose here. 
My friend, Mr. Dent, mentioned a number of those. Things like more 
money for the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Disease 
Control. Believe me, pandemics and bioterrorists don't care if you are 
Republican or Democrat, or Liberal or Conservative. We have to maintain 
this effort. It is extraordinarily important.
  I think, again, and my friends pointed out, we worked together to 
provide additional funds for early childhood, to provide additional 
money through programs like GEAR UP and TRIO, to help those who have 
never had an opportunity to go to college and succeed. And, frankly, 
things like the year-round Pell grant, that, again, as speakers from 
both sides of the aisle pointed out, are going to help students 
actually succeed and help them wrestle with the financial burden. So 
there is a lot in here to be proud of.
  Now, our vote on the rule is always a partisan exercise, so I 
recognize that. But I am very proud that, after that vote, we will have 
substantial numbers of Members from both sides of the aisle voting 
together on something they worked on together and achieved. It will be 
sent over to the Senate, and I think we will see the same result there, 
and eventually to the desk of the President of the United States, and I 
think he can sign it with a great deal of pride and a recognition that: 
hey, occasionally, bipartisanship and negotiation actually work.
  With that, again, I want to thank my very good friend for the debate. 
And I want to point out in closing that this is so much better than a 
continuing resolution. This is real governance at work. This is us 
working together, exercising oversight, and appropriately funding, and 
compromises on occasion, important functions for the American people.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 305 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 4. Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new clause:

[[Page H3087]]

  



    RESTRICTIONS ON CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 
                         RELATING TO HEALTHCARE

       13. (a) It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report which includes 
     any provision described in paragraph (b).''
       (b) A provision referred to in paragraph (a) is a provision 
     which, if enacted into law, would result in any of the 
     following:
       (1) The denial of health insurance coverage to individuals 
     on the basis that such individuals have a pre-existing 
     condition or a requirement for individuals with a pre-
     existing condition to pay more for premiums on the basis of 
     such individuals having such a preexisting condition.
       (2) The elimination of the prohibition on life time limits 
     on the dollar value of health insurance coverage benefits.
       (3) The termination of the ability of individuals under 26 
     years of age to be included on their parent's employer or 
     individual health coverage.
       (4) The reduction in the number of people receiving health 
     plan coverage pursuant to the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and Education Affordability 
     Reconciliation Act of 2010 (PL 111-152).
       (5) An increased cost to seniors for prescription drug 
     coverage pursuant to any changes to provisions closing the 
     Medicare prescription drug `donuthole'.
       (6) The requirement that individuals pay for preventive 
     services, such as for mammography, health screening, and 
     contraceptive services.
       (7) The reduction of Medicare solvency or any changes to 
     the Medicare guarantee.
       (8) The reduction of Federal taxes on the 1 percent of the 
     population with the highest income or increase the tax burden 
     (expressed as a percent of aggregate Federal taxes) on the 80 
     percent of the population with the lowest income.
       (c) It shall not be in order to consider a measure or 
     matter proposing to repeal or amend the Patient Protection 
     and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and the Health Care and 
     Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (PL 111-
     152), or part thereof, in the House or in the Committee of 
     the Whole House on the state of the Union unless an easily 
     searchable electronic estimate and comparison prepared by the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office is made available 
     on a publicly available website of the House.
       (d) It shall not be in order to consider a measure or 
     matter proposing to repeal or amend the Patient Protection 
     and Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) and the Health Care and 
     Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (PL 111-
     152), or part thereof, in the House or in the Committee of 
     the Whole House on the state of the Union, that is called up 
     pursuant to a rule or order that makes a manager's amendment 
     in order or considers such an amendment to be adopted, unless 
     an easily searchable updated electronic estimate and 
     comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office reflecting such amendment is made available on 
     a publicly available website of the House.
       (e) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order 
     that waives the application of paragraph (a), paragraph (b), 
     paragraph (c), or paragraph (d). As disposition of any point 
     of order under paragraphs (c) through (e), the Chair shall 
     put the question of consideration with respect to the order, 
     conference report, or rule as applicable. The question of 
     consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member 
     initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an 
     opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening 
     motion except one that the House adjourn.
                                  ____


        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. COLE. 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. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adopting the resolution, if ordered; and
  Suspending the rules and passing H.R. 1665, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 192, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 246]

                               YEAS--231

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

[[Page H3088]]


     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--192

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Black
     Chaffetz
     Demings
     Gohmert
     Larson (CT)
     Newhouse
     Poliquin

                              {time}  1401

  Messrs. RICHMOND, McNERNEY, and DOGGETT changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ADERHOLT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 3rd 2017, I 
was not present for rollcall vote 246. If I had been present for this 
vote, I would have voted: ``Nay'' on rollcall vote 246.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hensarling was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


       Moment of Silence Remembering Victims of Destructive Storm

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, a very destructive 
storm system moved across my home State of Texas, the Midwest, and the 
Southeast, killing 15 of our fellow citizens and destroying whole 
communities in its wake.
  In Van Zandt County in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, 
which I have the privilege to represent, four constituents lost their 
lives in a series of four violent tornadoes that shattered homes, 
shattered lives, and devastated neighbors in the Fifth District and the 
Fourth District of Texas.
  These storms also tragically killed seven people in Washington, 
Carroll, and Madison Counties in Arkansas; two people in Rankin and 
Holmes Counties in Mississippi; one person in Nashville, Tennessee; and 
one person from Billings, Missouri. Many more, Mr. Speaker, have been 
hospitalized.
  Joining me here today are some of the Members whose communities were 
affected: Congressman Womack and Congressman Crawford of Arkansas, 
Congressman Harper of Mississippi, Congressman Thompson of Mississippi, 
Congressman Cooper of Tennessee, Congressman Long of Missouri, and my 
fellow Texan, Congressman John Ratcliffe--again, Mr. Speaker, all who 
represent communities that were tragically affected.
  Mr. Speaker, our citizens who were lost have left a void in their 
families and left a void in their communities. Our hearts are heavy. 
Our prayers are sincere for the loved ones they leave behind and for 
those who recover from their wounds.
  For many of us, in our faith, there is a time to mourn. Mr. Speaker, 
now is the time to mourn. But as we have, in our faith, a time to 
mourn, we also have faith, Mr. Speaker, that one day our citizens will 
heal and they will heal and rebuild their communities as well.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would ask the House to help us in 
honoring those who lost their lives in these deadly storms and the 
families and loved ones they leave behind by joining us in observing a 
moment of silence.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. HASTINGS. 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 240, 
noes 186, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 247]

                               AYES--240

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

                               NOES--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley

[[Page H3089]]


     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Chaffetz
     Duncan (SC)
     Newhouse
     Poliquin

                              {time}  1414

  Mr. CRIST and Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  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.

                          ____________________