PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 469, SUNSHINE FOR REGULATIONS AND REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 732, STOP SETTLEMENT SLUSH FUNDS ACT OF...; Congressional Record Vol. 163, No. 171
(House of Representatives - October 24, 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 H8086-H8096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 469, SUNSHINE FOR REGULATIONS AND 
   REGULATORY DECREES AND SETTLEMENTS ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR 
   CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 732, STOP SETTLEMENT SLUSH FUNDS ACT OF 2017

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 577 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 577

       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. 469) to impose certain limitations on consent 
     decrees and settlement agreements by agencies that require 
     the agencies to take regulatory action in accordance with the 
     terms thereof, 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 an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-34. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part A of 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 amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to

[[Page H8087]]

     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. 732) 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. The amendments recommended by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such further 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 further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and any further amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
to include extraneous material on House Resolution 577, 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 to bring this rule 
forward on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for 
consideration of H.R. 469, the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory 
Decrees and Settlements Act, and H.R. 732, the Stop Settlement Slush 
Funds Act.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for each of 
the bills under consideration, and also provides for a motion to 
recommit on both bills. Additionally, the rule makes in order six 
amendments to each bill, respectively, representing ideas from Members 
on both sides of the aisle.
  Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from Judiciary 
Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Representative Jamie Raskin. In 
addition to the discussion of the underlying legislation at the Rules 
Committee, I previously joined my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee 
in a robust debate of the major components of these bills at Judiciary 
markups earlier this year.
  I introduced H.R. 469 to address a problem that, unfortunately, has 
become all too common: the practice of regulating behind closed doors 
and absent public input through what is known as sue and settle 
agreements.
  H.R. 469 also includes the Judgment Fund Transparency Act, introduced 
by Representative Chris Stewart, and the Article I Amicus and 
Intervention Act, introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob 
Goodlatte.
  The rule also provides for consideration of the Stop Settlement Slush 
Funds Act, which was introduced after an extensive investigation by the 
House Judiciary Committee found that the Department of Justice was 
systemically circumventing Congress and directing settlement money to 
activist groups.
  The legislation provided for by today's rule strengthens the balance 
of power and Congress' Article I authority, which we have allowed 
executive agencies to erode over time.
  Regardless of the political party in power, Congress has a 
constitutional obligation to carry out its duties and ensure that the 
legislative branch writes the law. When Congress fulfills its role as 
intended, the Federal Government is more responsive to the needs of the 
electorate and more accountable to our citizenry.
  My legislation, the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees 
and Settlements Act, otherwise known as sue and settle, addresses the 
problem of regulation through litigation. We have seen this problem 
explode in recent years, particularly under the previous 
administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I could offer you dozens of examples of this abuse, yet 
my time would expire long before I could list them all. A few 
particularly notable examples, however, highlight the enormous costs 
and burdens that regulation through litigation can impose on 
unsuspecting Americans.
  The infamous Utility MACT and Boiler MACT rules resulted from sue and 
settle cases. They carry price tags of $9.6 billion and $3 billion in 
costs and compliance, respectively.
  The Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Act rules boast a whopping $18 billion 
in compliance costs. These rules also resulted from covert sue and 
settle maneuvers.
  I don't think it is fair to ask hardworking job creators, farmers, 
and ranchers of northeast Georgia--or anywhere in this Nation, for that 
matter--to foot the bills for policy that bureaucrats secretly put in 
place.
  I am sad to report that the prevalence of these sue and settlement 
agreements have only grown in recent years. The second term of the 
previous administration brought us 77 sue and settle cases related to 
the Clean Air Act. By comparison, President Clinton's second term 
witnessed 27 sue and settle cases, and President Bush's second term saw 
28 such cases.
  But let me also say just right there, Mr. Speaker, that it doesn't 
matter which administration or which party is in the White House. This 
is not a bill that is designed to go for one party or another. It is 
simply saying that there is an Article I of the Constitution, and that 
is the legislative branch that writes the laws, and then the executive 
is to enforce the laws, not write them. I want to make it clear--and I 
know it is going to be talked about that this is not, but I do want to 
make it clear that this is for any administration.
  The Obama administration's penchant for circumventing Congress and 
its constitutional authority was incredible, and its legacy has 
endured. The weight of these improper agreements hangs around the necks 
of American businesses, employees, farmers, and ranchers.
  Fortunately, the Trump administration has recognized the impropriety 
of this practice and is taking steps to start curbing abuse of sue and 
settle agreements and the Federal rulemaking process. In fact, EPA 
Administrator Scott Pruitt recently issued a directive to increase 
public engagement in policymaking at the EPA.
  This is a critical step and one that I applaud, but it doesn't negate 
the need for Congress to act decisively. In fact, it only highlights 
it. Congress has a right and an obligation to defend its constitutional 
prerogatives.
  Like the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulator Decrees and 
Settlements Act, the Judgment Fund Transparency Act will make our 
government more accountable to the people by providing real 
transparency. The Judgment Fund Transparency Act is based upon the 
principle that the American people have the right to know how their 
government is spending their hard-earned tax dollars.

  The Judgment Fund was created over 50 years ago as a way to provide 
for efficient payment of lawful claims against the U.S., but it has 
become a permanent appropriation shrouded in secrecy.
  While many payments out of the Judgment Fund are both legitimate and 
appropriate, the fund remains the subject of egregious abuse. For 
example, last year, the administration paid Iran $1.3 billion out of 
the Judgment Fund--primarily in the form of foreign currency--as a 
payment for the interest that had accrued on Iranian assets

[[Page H8088]]

that had been frozen because Iran sponsors terrorism without shame. As 
you might imagine, the Obama administration stonewalled congressional 
efforts to investigate those payments.
  This much-needed legislation would not only ensure that such payments 
could not be hidden from Congress and the Americans they represents, it 
outright prohibits payments to state sponsors of terrorism and foreign 
terrorist organizations, which should be one of the least controversial 
actions ever to grace the floor of this House.
  As I have said before, transparency and accountability are the best 
remedies for a government run amuck. Title III of H.R. 469, Chairman 
Goodlatte's legislation, the Article I Amicus and Intervention Act, 
will further strengthen Congress' powers under Article I and, in doing 
so, will help restore checks and balances between the three branches of 
government.
  When the Federal courts are deciding important matters regarding the 
Constitution, congressional powers, and Federal law, it is critical 
that Congress have the opportunity, should it deem the action 
necessary, to file an amicus or otherwise intervene in pending 
litigation.
  The need for this legislation is compounded when, as was the case 
during the previous administration, the executive branch decides not to 
defend constitutionality of Federal law. This leads our adversarial 
legal system without anyone to litigate significant cases and shifts 
interpretation of the Constitution from the courts to the executive 
branch.
  This provision will ensure that the House, like the Senate, has a 
statutory right to file amicus briefs or intervene when Congress' 
powers and responsibilities are called into question.
  The Article I Amicus and Intervention Act, like the other bills 
contained in this measure, is an important step toward restoring 
government transparency, balance, and accountability.
  Mr. Speaker, you might be able to detect a theme that is emerging 
here today. My colleagues and I are working hard to ensure the American 
people have a government by the people and for the people. We are 
working to restore the balance of powers that our forefathers put into 
place and to ensure that the executive overreach that was the hallmark 
of the previous administration won't be able to undermine transparency 
in the future.
  In that vein, the rule also provides for consideration of the Stop 
Settlement Slush Funds Act. The Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act 
prevents the Department of Justice from subverting Congress' power of 
the purse by prohibiting settlements that direct payments to a 
nonvictim third party. Again, the misdirection of funds to irrelevant 
third parties is a problem that we have seen grow and that must be 
addressed.
  Under the previous administration, the Department of Justice funneled 
nonvictim third party groups as much as $880 million. The Department of 
Justice did this by collecting money from parties who had broken the 
law and then using that money to create a slush fund for special 
interest groups rather than sending the money to victims of illicit 
activity.
  The Department of Justice allowed the ``donations'' required under 
the settlements to count as double credit against defendants' payment 
obligations. Let me say that again. The Department of Justice allowed 
the ``donations'' required under the settlements to count as double 
credit against defendants' payment obligations.
  Interestingly, in some settlements under the previous administration, 
credit for direct relief to consumers was counted only as dollar for 
dollar, indicating the importance the Department of Justice places on 
directing these funds to nonvictim third party groups.
  The Department of Justice's policy move actually incentivized the 
funneling of money to nonvictim groups rather than the people who were 
injured. The slush fund scheme actually disadvantaged victims in favor 
of special interests.

                              {time}  1230

  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.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  October 24, 2017, on page H8088, the following appeared: Mr. 
COLLINS of Georgia. 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.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: 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.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Then the Department of Justice said that banks or other parties that 
it settled with could meet some of their settlement obligations by 
making, again, donations to certain groups. The money went 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 the victims and 
allows the Department of Justice to steer money to nonvictim third-
party groups, usually politically motivated organizations.
  Additionally, the parties that receive the funds, these nonvictim 
third-party organizations, aren't a part of the case at all. This means 
that 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, which many were, this scenario 
should concern everyone, Mr. Speaker. In fact, many of these groups are 
political or ideological in nature.
  Under the previous administration, in 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 
these settlements.
  I don't know about you, but I think when the DOJ requires a 
settlement, the funds should go to the victims involved in the case, 
including victims back home in northeast Georgia. If the victims cannot 
be found or if the problem cannot be directly rectified, then the 
settlement funds should go to the Treasury so that Congress, elected by 
individual Americans, can appropriately decide how to use them.
  I don't think it is acceptable to shortchange victims to benefit 
special interest and politically friendly third-party organizations.
  It is time to reassert congressional authority over this process so 
that hardworking folks are protected from more executive overreach and 
so that we can restore the separation of powers outlined in the 
Constitution.
  I am here fighting to make sure that the Federal Government puts the 
hardworking Georgians whom I represent and the rest of the citizens of 
the United States--not special interests--first.
  These bills help ensure that the American citizens have their voices 
heard, that they regain input into the system, and that the Federal 
Government is more transparent, accountable, and responsive to their 
needs.
  I would encourage others who share that goal to support this rule and 
the underlying bills.
  Again, as you look ahead for this, the thing that hopefully came out 
in this is that this is an Article I issue. This is simply about, over 
time, that has given a way from us in this body that we have done, that 
it is now time to reassess that, especially in light of the needs of 
the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here today to debate the rule for consideration of 
H.R. 469, the Congressional Article I Powers Strengthening Act; and 
H.R. 732, the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, two Judiciary bills that 
are deficient in both process and in substance.
  First, let me address the Congressional Article I Powers and 
Strengthening Act, a bill that my Republican friends purport will 
provide commonsense solutions to curbing regulatory abuse, but will, in 
fact, undermine the ability of Federal regulators to protect the health 
and safety of Americans, threaten the privacy of victims of government 
misconduct, and intrude on the Department of Justice's enforcement 
discretion, raising serious separation of powers concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, just as appalling as the substance of this bill is the 
process by which we are considering it and many other bills deriving 
from the Judiciary Committee lately.
  This bill is actually three Judiciary Committee bills wrapped in one 
Rules Committee print. However, one of the bills, H.R. 4070, was 
introduced last week without a hearing, without a markup, without 
notice to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, and without 
consultation with constitutional

[[Page H8089]]

lawyers and experts and interested citizens.
  This process is truly a slap in the face of regular order. A bill 
that has zero input from members on the Judiciary Committee or been the 
subject of any thoughtful discussion is suddenly on the House floor for 
a vote.
  Interestingly, when I listened to my friend from Georgia, who I know 
is particularly serious about his approaches to legislation, I sat here 
and then I looked into the gallery, and there were 20 people who were 
seated there. I didn't see on the faces of those that I could see any 
understanding of one thing that he said, not because of the speed of 
his manner of speech, but because of the complexity of issues that give 
rise to us.
  Among the things he said was transparency, accountability, and 
wanting to make sure that we, this body, exercise our prerogative with 
reference to for the people, by the people, and of the people.
  I would imagine that people listening to this debate would want to 
believe that half of this body, half of the people who are represented 
in this country had input to this legislation. Let me tell you, People, 
they had none, zero. No Democrat had any input to this measure that I 
just discussed.
  How can we expect Members of this body, let alone the American 
people, to have any idea as to what we are voting on with this measure 
and what its impact will be when it seems the path it took to getting a 
vote is based solely on the whim of the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee?
  Unfortunately, there is total disregard for even a semblance of 
regular order. That term is utilized a lot here, and, again, the 
American people, many of them, don't have a clue what we are talking 
about.

  What we are talking about, basically, is matters that go to 
committees have hearings, have both sides have input, have witnesses 
who are experts or have responsibilities in that arena, and then the 
matter comes to the Rules Committee and is granted a bill of substance 
to come here to the floor, and that process is generally known by those 
of us with Congress-speak as regular order.
  It is nothing new for the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee, 
which has been the worst offender of regular order, when it comes to 
pushing for a closed process.
  During the 115th Congress, bills coming to the floor from the 
Judiciary Committee were granted the most closed rules of any of the 
committees in this august body, eight closed rules. There is no 
committee chair in this Congress who has requested the Republican-
controlled Rules Committee grant more closed rules than the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Indeed, this departure from a process that we refer to as regular 
order, from a process that allows input from outside experts and other 
witnesses, a process that allows both parties, if there is a hearing, 
to ask questions of those witnesses, this departure is astounding, and 
that is within the context of this Congress, which, in just the first 
10 months, will soon become the most closed Congress in history.
  I remember when I ran for office in 1992, I appeared a lot on radio 
stations. In many of those appearances, the opposition, not just my 
opponent, but the major party, had begun a drumbeat of the Democrats 
are not following regular order, they are having closed rules.
  Little did I know in 1992, nor did I aspire when I came here, to be 
on the Rules Committee to have a better understanding, but I kept 
listening to this closed rule argument, and many persons lost their 
elections because of that.
  If there is ever a time for us to address it, it would be now. We 
have that prerogative to be able to open up this process so that all 
Members can be involved.
  When this Congress began, the distinguished Speaker of this body 
promised an open and transparent House. He called for a return to 
regular order. After what we have seen over the last 10 months, I 
shudder to think what the distinguished Speaker considers a closed 
process.
  I might add, the next tier under closed is structured rules, which we 
are here today on, which, yet again, limits the number of activities by 
others, amendments, and other processes that would be appropriate.
  Yesterday, when my colleague and I were in the Rules Committee, we 
had before us matters that were germane to this issue that were denied, 
that could have, under an open process, been made in order so that we 
could discuss it here today.
  This Republican process, shutting out the voice and input of 
representatives of nearly half the country, is not just an affront to 
normal House procedure, which it is, it is downright undemocratic and 
emblematic of the Republican majority's true inability to govern.
  Mr. Speaker, I turn to the second bill encompassed in this rule, H.R. 
732, a bill as misguided and substantively unnecessary as the first 
bill was lacking in process. In fact, in the last Congress, a law 
professor testifying on an identical bill described it as a solution in 
search of a problem.
  That was as true in the last Congress as it is in this one, which is 
too bad, because we do not lack in actual problems in desperate need of 
sensible solutions.
  H.R. 732 would prevent Federal agencies from requiring third-party 
payments, such as those to charities, in settlement agreements with 
entities accused of wrongdoing.
  Now, there in the report pointed out by the chairman of the Rules 
Committee yesterday shows the number of banks and mortgage companies 
and others that have violated the law and entered into settlements with 
the government for billions of dollars. Such payments, in excess of 
what the victims have agreed to, and the settlements that have been 
entered into and approved by judges, each one of these settlements, my 
friend said these payments may have gone to politically motivated--may 
be politically motivated organizations, and he cites to La Raza, which 
did receive money, but so did other charitable organizations: the New 
Christian Joy Full Gospel Baptist Church, the Catholic Charities of the 
Archdiocese of Chicago, the Catholic Charities Financial and Housing 
Counseling.
  We sought yesterday while we were in the committee--I sought and 
asked staff to provide for me some of the organizations that my friends 
say may be politically motivated, or activists, as he referred to them, 
and it is 49 pages of organizations that were available to receive 
these funds, and, yes, some of them are liberal and also some of them 
are conservative organizations as we know them.
  Such payments to charities are a common enforcement tool in 
settlements and have long been used to help provide communities with 
relief from systemic harm caused by illegal behavior.
  Now, for example, following the 2008 financial crisis, in some of the 
settlement agreements with Wall Street banks, President Obama's 
Department of Justice required banks to donate money to charities 
committed to neighborhood stabilization and foreclosure prevention 
efforts, and this made perfect sense.

                              {time}  1245

  In the wake of the crisis, as many as 10 million families lost their 
homes to foreclosure. Both the Government Accountability Office and the 
Federal courts have long upheld this practice in settlement agreements. 
Perhaps unsurprisingly, my Republican colleagues considered these 
provisions to be an attempt by President Obama's administration to use, 
as they say, ``a slush fund,'' to enrich, ``liberal friends,'' despite 
the fact that certified charities eligible to receive these payments 
encompass liberal and conservative groups alike.
  They even launched an investigation which yielded no credible 
evidence to substantiate their claims. Yet, despite the GAO, the 
Federal courts, and a Republican-led investigation showing no 
wrongdoing, we are considering this bill today to ban this longstanding 
legal practice aimed at assisting communities in the wake of suffering 
systemic abuse--abuse that I will underline again, and even say slowly, 
hurt Democrats and Republicans.
  I suppose the only question left to ask my Republican friends is, 10 
months into the new administration, nearly a year after the last 
election, why are they continuing to conduct

[[Page H8090]]

pointless and partisan oversight of the Obama administration?
  Let me see if I can make this clear. President Obama is no longer the 
President of the United States, nor is Bill Clinton or George Bush. The 
President of the United States now is a new individual who we have to 
deal with, and it would be helpful if we were to address some of the 
matters ongoing that this particular administration is deserving of 
oversight.
  I know that President Obama was a useful foil for many in the 
Republican Party when it came to messaging and campaigning, but he is 
not the President anymore. He won his two elections. That is the past. 
This bill represents nothing but the Republican majority grasping at 
straws and trying their best to turn their oversight attention away 
from doing their duty and providing oversight of the Trump 
administration.
  Today, two new inquiries, I don't even have the time or wouldn't take 
the time to go into the inquiries that ain't going nowhere, have been 
announced, certainly as a distraction to many of the negatives that 
come out by virtue of this particular Congress not having done 
anything. It is the do-nothing Congress on steroids.
  If there was ever an administration that needed rigorous oversight, 
it is the current one. In just 10 months, we have had reports of 
gratuitous use of private jets, the use of private email servers by 
senior staff, and I might add that one of those things identified today 
is they are going to go after Hillary or have oversight hearings on 
Hillary Clinton's emails. Enough already. Hillary Clinton lost her 
election, and lost with the emails as well, but we have current staff 
who are using private email servers. Given your history, should that 
not at least pique your oversight interest?
  Spending tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars to use Mar-a-Lago for 
official meetings, waste, cronyism, the list goes on and on and on. How 
about oversight of a little, old company in Montana that doesn't have 
any successful history getting a $200 million no-bid contract in Puerto 
Rico to reestablish those facilities there? Out of Montana, little, old 
company, $200 million, no-bid. You got it. You go forward. You talk 
about waste and cronyism. And what do we get from the Republicans? 
Deafening silence.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that we are considering the rule for a 
bill today entitled Article I Powers Strengthening Act when this 
Republican Congress has shown they can't even undertake the basic 
Article I duty of providing oversight of the executive. They don't need 
to strengthen Article I, they need to just start doing their jobs in 
the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart) from the Second District. He is a 
sponsor of the Judgment Fund Transparency Act.
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing up H.R. 
469, which includes, as indicated, the text of my bill, the Judgment 
Fund Transparency Act.
  The purpose of this act is really very simple. Actually, contrary to 
previous arguments, the rule of this and the intent of this is so 
simple. It is simply for government transparency. This bill will go a 
long way in providing our constituents and taxpayers a better idea of 
how their tax dollars are spent.
  Now, heaven knows, and for heaven's sake, those of us here, we 
certainly know, the Federal Government isn't perfect. It is prone to 
errors that can cause harm to individuals or organizations from time to 
time, and when these errors are particularly egregious, the government 
is sued and damages are awarded to those who are harmed.
  Early on, in fact, this Congress spent a large part of its time doing 
nothing but sorting through claims and making appropriations to pay 
those claims. In fact, not even 100 years ago, much of this body's work 
consumed only that topic, and it wasn't until 1956 that Congress 
established the Judgment Fund and gave authority to the Treasury 
Department to resolve these claims in ``a permanent and definite 
appropriation.'' That simply has been abused.
  In keeping with the law's requirement to report on the fund from time 
to time, the Treasury Department files a yearly report of the Judgment 
Fund with Congress, and also maintains a web page that can be searched.
  Now, this sounds good. Right? But the cryptic and otherwise limited 
information related to each payout has made the database almost 
entirely worthless. There is no information on what the government did 
wrong. There is no information on the claimant. In fact, journalists 
and transparency groups revealed in the last few months that from 2009 
to 2015, the government paid out more than $25 million to unnamed or 
redacted recipients. A $25 million secret. We don't know who was paid, 
we don't know why they were paid, and, in some circumstances, we don't 
know how much they were paid.
  Now, we are all familiar with the previous administration's decision 
to take $1.3 billion out of the fund, convert it to cash, and deliver 
it to Iran, yet this isn't the only egregious use of this fund.

  Three years ago, The New York Times reported on what was likely an 
illegal billion-dollar payout to thousands of farmers who had never 
even sued the government. This isn't just unacceptable, it is crazy. It 
is horrible government. It is the type of thing that makes people 
resent the Federal Government.
  This bill aims to clarify and to reduce that. It aims to clean up the 
ambiguity that exists between the current law and provide much-needed 
transparency. It would require the Treasury to make public any payment 
from the Judgment Fund and to include very simple things that common 
sense would surely demand: the name of the agency named in the 
judgment, the name of the plaintiff, the amount they were paid, any 
other fees such as attorneys' fees or interest, and then finally a 
brief description of the facts which led to the claim.
  The Judgment Fund Transparency Act may not prevent bad decisions by 
all government employees or government agencies, but it will shine a 
light on those decisions to the American people. This is about helping 
to increase the amount of trust between the American people and a 
government that they simply don't trust. We give them reasons not to 
trust us. Let's bring accountability and transparency to that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' 
on passage of this crucial bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am ready to have my friend understand that I am 
getting close to closing. I don't think I have any speakers, but I do 
have words that I wish to put forward right now.
  It is shameful that we would be in a position where the DACA program 
is being threatened without a single thought to the consequences this 
decision would have on the 800,000 young lives this program protects.
  While this may appear to be off message with regard to the measures 
that are before us, the minority is given an opportunity to present 
what is called a previous question, and it can be on matters germane to 
the thoughts of the minority and can be on any subject that they 
choose. In this instance, we choose to, with the previous question, 
address DACA.
  Do the American people even want DACA to end? The answer is clearly 
no. According to a Politico/Morning Consult poll, support for allowing 
these immigrants to remain in the United States spans across party 
lines: 84 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Independents, and 69 
percent of Republicans think they should stay. Congress must act to 
protect our DREAMers.
  Mr. Speaker, here is a chance to rectify the President's decision and 
restore the American people's faith in this institution.
  If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment 
to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan 
bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are 
Americans in every way except on paper.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

[[Page H8091]]

  

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), from Georgia's 12th Congressional 
District, to speak on these issues of Article I.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support my fellow Georgian's, 
Congressman Doug Collins, bill, H.R. 469.
  One of the biggest complaints I hear about the Federal Government is 
the lack of accountability or these backroom deals. One glaring example 
of this is what is referred to as sue and settlement litigation.
  Under previous administrations, left-leaning groups would sue a 
Federal agency to try and enact regulatory changes without going 
through the normal rulemaking process. Both parties, the Federal 
Government and special interest groups, settle in court with an 
already-agreed-upon deal.
  Regulatory rules are then made quickly without any public notice or 
the input of any other relevant parties but carry the rule of law.
  These new rules are often the most burdensome and cost our businesses 
billions of dollars each year. This doesn't sound like draining the 
swamp to me.
  H.R. 469 stops these unfair arrangements by requiring agencies to 
publicly post and report to Congress on sue and settlement complaints, 
consent decrees, and settlement arrangements. It also prohibits the 
same-day filing of complaints and settlement agreements in cases 
seeking to compel agency action.
  Congressman Collins' legislation, the Sunshine for Regulations and 
Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act, will provide greater 
accountability and transparency to the American public, while stopping 
special interests from improperly influencing our Nation's regulatory 
regime. We must uphold a fair and transparent regulatory process. The 
American people demand this from us.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule on this 
commonsense legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier I mentioned that there were 49 pages--I didn't 
realize how extensive it really was--of organizations that were 
eligible to receive funds under the Justice Department's prerogative. 
It includes organizations that did, in fact, receive these funds.

                              {time}  1300

  They come from a wide array of organizations in our respective 
communities that, in my judgment, have on-the-ground ability to be 
efficient and to make sure that the expenditure of those funds benefit 
those who have suffered from systemic inequities by large 
organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a portion of these organizations 
that were eligible to receive funds under the Justice Department's 
prerogative.

                              Agency Name

       Money Management International, Anchorage, AK.; 
     Neighborworks Anchorage Formerly Anchorage Neighborhood 
     Housing Services; Organized Community Action Programs Inc.--
     Covington County; Birmingham Urban League, Inc.; Gateway 
     Financial Freedom/CCCS of Central Alabama; Jefferson County 
     Committee for Economic Opportunity; Jefferson County Housing 
     Authority; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of 
     America) Birmingham. AL; Neighborhood Housing Services of 
     Birmingham, Inc.; United Way of Central Alabama, Inc.; United 
     Way of Central Alabama, Inc.; Community Action Partnership of 
     North Alabama--Cullman Branch; Community Action Partnership 
     of North Alabama, Inc.; Community Action Agency of Northwest 
     Alabama, Inc.; Hale Empowerment and Revitalization 
     Organization (HERO); Organized Community Action Programs 
     Inc.--Butler County; Organized Community Action Programs 
     Inc.--Lowndes County; CCCS of Tennessee River Valley; 
     Community Action Partnership, Huntsville/Madison & Limestone 
     Counties. Inc.; Family Services Center, Inc.
       CCCS of Mobile--Jackson; Telamon Corporation; CCCS of 
     Mobile; Center for Fair Housing; Mobile Housing Board; CCCS 
     of Alabama--Montgomery; Legal Services Alabama Inc; CCCS of 
     Mobile--Montrose AL; Community Action Partnership of North 
     Alabama--Moulton Branch; Organized Community Action Programs 
     Inc.--Dale County; Housing Authority of the City of Prichard; 
     Community Action Agency of Northwest Alabama--Franklin 
     County; Organized Community Action Programs Inc.--Crenshaw 
     County; Community Action Agency of Northwest Alabama--Colbert 
     County; Organized Community Action Program, Inc.; Community 
     Service Programs of West Alabama, Inc.; Organized Community 
     Action Programs Inc.--Bullock County; Credit Counseling of 
     Arkansas--Bentonville; Mississippi County, Arkansas Economic 
     Opportunity Commission, Inc.; Hope Enterprise Corporation.
       Family Service Agency--CCCS; Arkansas River Valley Area 
     Council, Inc.; Money Management International El Dorado; 
     Credit Counseling of Arkansas; Crawford Sebastian Community 
     Development Council; Credit Counseling of Arkansas Fort 
     Smith; Northwest Regional Housing Authority; Southern Bancorp 
     Community Partners; Jonesboro Urban Renewal and Housing 
     Authority Housing and Community Development Organization 
     (JURHA HCDO; Arkansas Development Finance Authority; Better 
     Community Development, Inc.; Community Resources Technicians, 
     Inc.; Family Service Agency--CCCS; In Affordable Housing, 
     Incorporated; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of 
     America) Little Rock, AR; Southern Bancorp Community 
     Partners; Universal Housing Development Corporation; Credit 
     Counseling of Arkansas--Springdale; Southeastern Arizona 
     Governments Organization; Community Action Human Resources 
     Agency.
       Housing Solutions of Northern Arizona, Inc.; Money 
     Management International, Inc. Flagstaff, AZ; Northern 
     Arizona Council of Governments; Administration of Resources 
     and Choices; Money Management International, Inc. Glendale, 
     AZ; Western Arizona Council of Governments (WACOG)--Kingman 
     Branch Office; Housing Counseling and Education Services; 
     Money Management International, Inc. Mesa, AZ; Springboard--
     Mesa; Chicanos Por La Causa--Nogales; Nogales Community 
     Development Corporation; Chicanos Por La Causa, Phoenix; City 
     of Phoenix Neighborhood Services Department; Community 
     Housing Resources of Arizona; Desert Mission Neighborhood 
     Renewal; Greater Phoenix Urban League; Labor's Community 
     Service Agency; Money Management International Phoenix Phone 
     Center; Money Management International, Inc. Phoenix, AZ 
     Central.
       NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America) 
     Phoenix, AZ; Neighborhood Housing Services of Phoenix; NID-
     HCA Phoenix Randolph; Take Charge America; Money Management 
     International, Inc. Prescott, AZ; Campesinos Sin Fronteras; 
     Comite De Bien Estar, Inc.; Credit Advisors Foundation; Money 
     Management International, Inc. Phoenix, AZ--North; Housing 
     America Corporation; Greenpath Debt Solutions; Money 
     Management International, Inc. Tempe, AZ; Newtown Community 
     Development Corporation; Administration of Resources and 
     Choices; Catholic Community Services of So. Arizona, Inc. DBA 
     Pio Decimo Center; Chicanos Por La Causa-Tucson; Family 
     Housing Resources; Money Management International, Inc. 
     Tucson, AZ--SE; Money Management, Inc. Tuscon, AZ--NW; Old 
     Pueblo Housing Development, Inc.
       Southern Arizona Legal Aid, Inc.; Southwest Fair Housing 
     Counsel; The Primavera Foundation, Inc.; Tucson Urban League; 
     Northern Arizona Council of Governments; Western Arizona 
     Council of Governments (WACOG); Western Arizona Council of 
     Governments NCOA HECM; Consumer Credit Counseling Service of 
     Orange County; CCCS of the North Coast; CCCS of Kern and 
     Tulare Counties; Community Housing Council of Kern Co.; 
     Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Orange County; Korean 
     Resource Center; Surepath Financial Solutions; Consumer 
     Credit Counselors of Kern and Tulare Counties; Money 
     Management International Chula Vista; California Rural Legal 
     Assistance--Coachella; Clearpoint Credit Counseling 
     Solutions--Commerce Branch; Catholic Charities of the East 
     Bay; Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO).
       Money Management International Concord; National Asian 
     American Coalition (Formerly Known as Mabuhay Alliance); 
     California Rural Legal Assistance--Delano; Able Works; 
     Springboard--El Cajon; California Rural Legal Assistance--El 
     Centro; Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board--El Centro 
     Branch (Imperial County); Community Housing Works; Pacific 
     Community Services Fairfield; Consumer Credit Counseling 
     Service of Orange County; Money Management International 
     Fremont; Project Sentinel; California Rural Legal 
     Assistance--Fresno; Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions 
     Inc.--Fresno Branch; Community Housing Council of Fresno; 
     Housing Authority of the City of Fresno; California Rural 
     Legal Assistance--Gilroy; Project Sentinel; Clearpoint Credit 
     Counseling Solutions--Glendale Branch; Clearpoint Credit 
     Counseling Solutions--Granada Hills Branch.
       NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America) Los 
     Angeles, CA; Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO); 
     Springboard--Hemet; Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board--
     Indio Branch (Riverside County); Amador Tuolumne Community 
     Action Agency; Springboard--Ladera; Clearpoint Credit 
     Counseling Solutions--Lakewood Branch; California Rural Legal 
     Assistance--Lamont; Pure Hearts R Us Housing Corporation; 
     Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO); Tri-Valley 
     Housing Opportunity Center; Home Preservation and Prevention 
     (HPP Cares); Operation Hope Inc.--Long Beach Branch; 
     Springboard--Long Beach; East La Community Corporation 
     (ELACC); Korean Churches for Community Development; Korean 
     Resource Center; Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Services,

[[Page H8092]]

     Inc; New Economics for Women; NID-HCA Reeves;
       Operation Hope, Inc; Operation Hope, Inc.--La Branch; 
     Shalom Center for T.R.E.E. of Life; Thai Community 
     Development Corp.; Watts Century Latino Org.; West Angeles 
     Community Development Corp.; California Rural Legal 
     Assistance--Madera; California Rural Legal Assistance--
     Marysville Office; Operation Hope, Inc.--Maywood Branch; 
     National Asian American Coalition (Formerly Known As Mabuhay 
     Alliance); California Rural Legal Assistance--Modesto; 
     Community Housing and Shelter Services; Habitat for 
     Humanity, Stanislaus County; Project Sentinel; Montebello 
     Housing Development Corp.; California Rural Legal 
     Assistance--Monterey; Fair Housing Council of Riverside 
     County, Inc.; Project Sentinel; Eden Council for Hope and 
     Opportunity (ECHO); Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon 
     Valley.
       Money Management International Oakland; NACA (Neighborhood 
     Assistance Corporation of America) Oakland, CA; National 
     Association of Real Estate Brokers--Investment Division, Inc; 
     NID-HCA Oakland Main Branch; Operation Hope, Inc.--Oakland 
     Branch; The Spanish Speaking Unity Council of Alameda County, 
     Inc. (The Unity Council); Faith Based Community Development 
     Corporation; Money Management International Oceanside; Inland 
     Fair Housing and Mediation Board; Neighborhood Partnership 
     Housing Services, Inc.; Neighborhood Housing Services of 
     Orange County; California Rural Legal Assistance--Oxnard; 
     Ventura County Community Development Corporaton; Fair Housing 
     Council of Riverside County, Inc.; Eden Council for Hope and 
     Opportuntiy (ECHO); California Rural Legal Assistance--Paso 
     Robles; Pacific Community Services, Inc.; Operation Hope, 
     Inc.--Poway Branch; Hometown Community Development Corp, Dba 
     Homestrong USA; Housing Opportunities Collaborative--Inland 
     Empire Branch.
       Community Housing Development Corporation of North 
     Richmond; Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.; 
     Community Connect; Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, 
     Inc.; Springboard--Shine Center (Latham); Springboard Non 
     Profit Consumer Credit Management Inc.--HPF Affiliate; 
     Springboard Non--Profit Consumer Credit Management, Inc.; 
     Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions--Sacramento Branch; 
     Sacramento Home Loan Counseling Center; Sacramento 
     Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.; California Rural Legal 
     Assistance--Salinas; Housing Resource Center of Monterey 
     County; Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions--San 
     Bernardino Branch; Neighborhood Housing Services of The 
     Inland Empire, Inc.; NID-HCA Inland Empire J. Jackson; 
     Bayside Community Center; Clearpoint Credit Counseling 
     Solutions--San Diego Branch; Community Housing Works; Housing 
     Opportunities Collaborative; Housing Opportunities 
     Collaborative--Branch for San Diego/Imperial Counties; Money 
     Management International San Diego.
       National Asian American Coalition (Formerly Known as 
     Mabuhay Alliance); Navicore Solutions--San Diego, CA; 
     Neighborhood House Association; San Diego Urban League; Union 
     of Pan Asian Communities; Asian Incorporated; CCCS of San 
     Francisco; Consumer Credit Counseling Service of San 
     Francisco--HPF Affiliate; Mission Economic Development 
     Association (MEDA); Project Sentinel; San Francisco Housing 
     Development Corporation; Neighborhood Housing Services 
     Silicon Valley; Project Sentinel; Santa Clara County Asian 
     Law Alliance; Surepath Financial Solutions--San Jose; NID-HCA 
     San Leandro--Chambers; California Rural Legal Assistance--San 
     Luis Obispo; Peoples' Self Help Housing; Fair Housing of 
     Marin; Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions--Santa Ana 
     Branch.
       Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Orange County; 
     Housing Opportunities Collaborative--Orange County Branch; 
     Legal Aid Society of Orange County; Orange County Fair 
     Housing Council, Inc.; California Rural Legal Assistance--
     Santa Barbara; Project Sentinel; California Rural Legal 
     Assistance; California Rural Legal Assistance--Santa Maria; 
     Wise & Healthy Aging; California Rural Legal Assistance;
       Catholic Charities, Diocese of Santa Rosa; CCCS of San 
     Francisco; Centro Familia Esperanza; Operation Hope Inc.--
     South Gate Branch; California Rural Legal Assistance--
     Stockton; Clearpoint Credit Counseling Solutions--Stockton 
     Branch; NID-HCA A. Jones; Visionary Home Builders of 
     California; Project Sentinel; Northern Circle Indian Housing 
     Authority, United Native Housing Development Corp.
       City of Vacaville Department of Housing Services; Cabrillo 
     Economic Development Corporation; Inland Fair Housing and 
     Mediation Board--Victorville Branch (San Bernardino County); 
     CCCS of Kern and Tulare Counties; Community Services and 
     Employment Training, Inc. (CSET); Self Help Enterprises; 
     California Rural Legal Assistance--Oceanside; Surepath 
     Financial Solutions--Watsonville; Rural Community Assistance 
     Corporation; Community Resource and Housing Development 
     Corporation--Alamosa; City of Aurora Community Development 
     Division; Boulder County Housing Authority; Greenpath, Inc.; 
     Upper Arkansas Area Council of Governments; CCCS of Greater 
     Dallas--Colorado Springs; Adams County Housing Authority; 
     Colorado Housing and Finance Authority; Colorado Housing 
     Assistance Corporation; Del Norte Neighborhood Development 
     Corporation (NDC); Denver Housing Authority.
       Greenpath, Inc.; Money Management International Denver, 
     Aurora Branch; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of 
     America) Denver, CO; NEWSED CDC; Northeast Denver Housing 
     Center; Southwest Improvement Council; Housing Solutions for 
     the Southwest; Regional Housing Alliance La Plata Homes Fund; 
     Brothers Redevelopment, Inc.; Greenpath Debt Solutions; 
     Neighbor to Neighbor; Northeast Colorado Housing, Inc.; Tri-
     County Housing & Community Development Corporation; Neighbor 
     to Neighbor; Grand Junction Housing Authority; Greenpath Debt 
     Solutions; Money Management International Highlands Ranch; 
     Douglas County Housing Partnership; Boulder County Housing 
     Authority; Neighbor to Neighbor.
       Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Pueblo, CO; 
     Neighborworks of Pueblo; Summit County Family Resource 
     Center; San Miguel Regional Housing Authority; Community 
     Resources and Housing Development Corporation; Money 
     Management International Westminster; Bridgeport Neighborhood 
     Trust; Housing Development Fund, Inc.--Bridgeport Branch; 
     Housing Development Fund--Danbury Branch; Financial 
     Counselors of America Connecticut Branch; Money Management 
     International East Hartford; Community Renewal Team, Inc.; 
     Hartford Areas Rally Together; Housing Education Resource 
     Center; Mutual Housing Association of Greater Hartford, Inc.; 
     NACA (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America) 
     Hartford, CT; Urban League of Greater Hartford, Inc.; Money 
     Management International Milford; Neighborhood Housing 
     Services of New Britain, Inc.; Greater New Haven Community 
     Loan Fund.
       Mutual Housing of South Central CT, Inc.//Neighborworks New 
     Horizons; Neighborhood Housing Services of New Haven; 
     Catholic Charities, Norwich, CT; Connecticut Housing Finance 
     Authority; Housing Development Fund, Inc.; Urban League of 
     Southern Connecticut; Neighborhood Housing Services of 
     Waterbury, Inc.; National Council on Aging (NCOA); Asian 
     American Homeownership Counseling; Carecen--Central American 
     Resource Center; Greater Washington Urban League; Homefree--
     USA Washington DC Branch; Housing Counseling Services, 
     Incorporated; Latino Economic Development Corporation; 
     Lydia's House; Manna, Inc. Marshall Heights Community 
     Development Organization; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance 
     Corporation of America) Washington, DC; National Capacd; 
     National Community Reinvestment Coalition.
       National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Inc.; National 
     Council of La Raza; National Foundation for Credit 
     Counseling, Inc.; Neighborhood Reinvestment Corp. DBA 
     Neighborworks America; NID-HCA Williams; Operation Hope, 
     Inc.--DC Branch; United Planning Organization; United 
     Planning Organization--Anacostia Center; United Planning 
     Organization--Petey Greene Community Svc. Center; United 
     Planning Organization Shaw Community Svc. Center; University 
     Legal Services; University Legal Services; CCCS of Maryland 
     and Delaware; Delaware State Housing Authority; First State 
     Community Action Agency, Inc.; National Council on 
     Agricultural Life and Labor Research Fund, Inc. (NCALL 
     Research, Inc.); First State Community Action Agency, Inc; 
     National Council on Agricultural Life and Labor Research 
     Fund, Inc. (NCALL, Research, Inc.); Hockessin Community 
     Center; First State Community Action Agency, Inc.
       National Council on Agricultural Life and Labor Research 
     Fund, Inc. (NCALL Research, Inc.); YWCA Delaware; Telamon 
     Corporation; CCCS of Delaware Valley, DBA Clarifi; CCCS of 
     Delaware Valley, Inc. DBA Clarifi; CCCS of Maryland and 
     Delaware; Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council; 
     Housing Opportunities of Northern Delaware, Inc.; Interfaith 
     Community Housing of Delaware; Neighborhood House, 
     Incorporated; West End Neighborhood House; Homes in 
     Partnership, Inc.; We Help Community Development Corporation; 
     Florida Cooperative Extension--Holmes County Cooperative 
     Extension Service (Terminated); Boynton Beach Faith Based 
     CDC; Catholic Charities Diocese of Venice, Inc.; Manatee 
     Community Action Agency, Inc. F/K/A Manatee Opportunity 
     Council, Incorporated; Florida Cooperative Extension Levy 
     County Cooperative Extension Service; Florida Cooperative 
     Extension--Hernando County Cooperative Extension Service; 
     All-American Foreclosure Solutions, Inc.
       Cape Coral Housing Development Corporation; Florida 
     Cooperative Extension--Washington County Cooperative 
     Extension Service (Terminated); Bright Community Trust, Inc.; 
     Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.; Consumer 
     Credit and Budget Counseling, DBA National Foundation for 
     Debt Management; Consumer Credit and Budget Counseling, DBA 
     National Foundation for Debt Management; Housing Services of 
     Central Florida; Tampa Bay Community Development Corporation; 
     Homes in Partnership, Incorporated; Credit Card Mgmt Svcs, 
     Inc. D/B/A Debthelper.Com; Florida Cooperative Extension--
     Brevard County Cooperative Extension Service; Florida 
     Cooperative Extension--Brevard County Cooperative Extension 
     Service (Duplicate); CCCS of West FL; Florida Cooperative 
     Extension Dixie County Cooperative Extension Service; Florida 
     Cooperative Extension--Pasco County Cooperative Extension 
     Service (Terminated); Adopt A Hurricane Family, Inc. DBA 
     Crisis Housing Solutions; Apprisen--CCCS--Davie; Florida

[[Page H8093]]

     Cooperative Extension--Broward County Cooperative Extension; 
     Central Florida Community Development Corporation; Community 
     Legal Services of Mid-Florida, Inc.
       Mid-Florida Housing Partnership, Inc.; Florida Cooperative 
     Extension--Walton County Cooperative Extension Service; 
     Florida Cooperative Extension--Volusia County Cooperative 
     Extension Service; H.E.L.P. Community Development Corp.; 
     Affordable Housing by Lake, Inc; Centro Campesino, 
     Farmworkers Center, Inc.; New Visions Community Development 
     Corporation; Urban League of Broward County Main Office; 
     Urban League of Broward County (Branch Office); Affordable 
     Homeownership Foundation Inc; Home Ownership Resource Center 
     of Lee County; Housing Authority of the City of Ft. 
     Myers; Lee County Housing Development Corporation; CCCS of 
     West FL; City of Gainesville Housing Division; Florida 
     Cooperative Extension; Florida Cooperative Extension--
     Alachua County Cooperative Extension Service; Florida 
     Cooperative Extension--Alachua County Cooperative 
     Extension Service (Duplicate); Neighborhood Housing & 
     Development Corporation; CCCS of the Midwest.
       Community Housing Partners Corporation; Community Legal 
     Services of Mid-Florida, Inc.--Inverness Office; Black 
     Bottom/Springfield Human Development Corporation, DBA St. 
     Joseph Homeownership; Community Home Ownership Center, Inc. 
     F/K/A Jacksonville FL Chapter Assoc. of Housing Counselors & 
     Agencies CDC; Family Foundations of Northeast Florida, Inc.; 
     Florida Cooperative Extension--Duval County Cooperative 
     Extension Service; Greenpath, Inc.; Habitat for Humanity of 
     Jacksonville, Inc.; Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc.; 
     Jacksonville Urban League; NACA (Neighborhood Assistance 
     Corporation of America) Jacksonville, FL; Operation New Hope 
     CDC; Wealth Watcher, Inc; Community Legal Services of Mid-
     Florida, Inc.--Kissimmee Office; Florida Cooperative 
     Extension--Osceola County Cooperative Extension Service; The 
     Agriculture and Labor Program, Inc.; Florida Cooperative 
     Extension--Columbia County Extension Service; Springboard--
     Lake Mary; Catholic Charities of Central Florida; Keystone 
     Challenge Fund, Inc.
       Florida Cooperative Extension--Pinellas County Cooperative 
     Extension Service; Broward County Housing Authority; Florida 
     Cooperative Extension--Citrus County Cooperative Extension 
     Service; Debt Management Credit Counseling Corp; Debt 
     Management Credit Counseling Corp; Debt Management Credit 
     Counseling Corp.; Florida Cooperative Extension--Suwannee 
     County Cooperative Extension Service; Greenpath Debt 
     Solutions; Florida Cooperative Extension--Baker County 
     Cooperative Extension Service (Duplicate); Florida 
     Cooperative Extension--Baker County Cooperative Extension 
     Service (Terminated); Florida Cooperative Extension--Madison 
     County Cooperative Extension Service (Terminated); Community 
     Housing Initiative, Inc; Cuban American National Council, 
     Inc.--Miami; Little Haiti Housing Association, Inc.; 
     Neighborhood Housing Services of South Florida; Real Estate, 
     Education and Community Housing, Inc.; SER Jobs for Progress; 
     Miami Beach Community Development Corp; NID-HCA Florida 
     Felton; Housing Development Corporation of SW Florida, Inc.

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge that my friend 
from Georgia does have a companion bill in the other body. I believe it 
is S. 333. I would--like I will when the Georgia-Florida game comes 
up--make a wager with my friend that that bill ain't going nowhere. 
But, anyway, we are here talking about it, so my wager with the 
gentleman will be under appropriate measures. I wish he and I could go 
to Jacksonville together at what they say is the greatest cocktail 
party in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned that at least one of the bills wrapped 
up in today's, in my view, nonsense, ought to continue to be described 
as a solution in search of a problem. I am not fully convinced that the 
observation is not an apt one for the whole lot of bills before us 
today. As I just mentioned, this is particularly disturbing as this 
country has real problems which need real solutions.
  The Children's Health Insurance Program has expired, and there seems 
to be little to no will on the other side of the aisle to right this 
wrong at this time. Sure, we hear possibilities of a solution. When I 
came back this week, I thought that we would certainly address it. 
September 30 was when it expired. Yet we and, more importantly, 
millions of children and organizations wait for an answer.
  We know that we are fast approaching a government shutdown, but 
instead we come to the floor week after week forced to debate 
ridiculous bills that, in substance, are well-thought-out by the 
persons presenting them, but, in reality, are not going to become law 
and are nothing more than talking points of the day, when these things 
that we should be addressing are going unmet.
  We need to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, yet the 
answer to this issue evades my friends across the aisle. We need to 
reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, yet we wait.
  We need to address the crippling epidemic that is gun violence in 
this country. We need to remember that not even a month ago, this man 
out in Las Vegas took aim from the 32nd floor of a hotel and rained 
terror down upon thousands of innocent people enjoying a music 
festival. The weapons of war he used that night are just as readily 
available today as the day he bought them.
  Finally, I understand people may want to forget the following, but we 
cannot, and I will not let you forget that there are millions of people 
across the United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and there are 
thousands in Florida and in Texas who are still awaiting visits from 
FEMA.
  On the plane up yesterday, I was reading a 3-page-long article 
addressing, right in my community, the fact that people are sitting 
waiting for FEMA's response. I continue to raise at the same time that 
these hurricanes in Texas, southwest Louisiana, the Virgin Islands, and 
Puerto Rico have occurred, forest fires in California and Montana and 
Oregon have occurred, and we haven't addressed drought in other areas 
that occurred. Just last week, tornadoes occurred in Oklahoma. We have 
these disasters occurring.
  I heard my colleague earlier today during morning hour make a 
presentation regarding a main burst in Detroit, Michigan, and that they 
don't have in her area sufficient drinking water. We know that the 
Flint, Michigan, matter isn't resolved.
  This past weekend, I busted a tire on a bumpy-hole road, and we need 
to fix our roads in this country. This Capital ought to be called the 
``Pothole of the World.''
  Yet we stand here day after day discussing things that are going 
nowhere when people in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are craving 
electricity, opening schools with no electricity, moving people from 
hospitals. We need safe drinking water all over this country. They need 
for us to show compassion and at least some decency with reference to 
humanity with those concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many things that this body can do better. My 
friend from Florida outlined his opinion of what those may be. He also 
outlined his opinion of what will be a nice Georgia victory come 
Saturday, this weekend, in Jacksonville. I do appreciate his 
acknowledgement of what will be coming.
  But I think there are also some other things that we need to discuss, 
and we can talk about that. I will take, first off, the issue of the 
Judiciary Committee on which I serve, which I believe, frankly, I have 
the privilege of serving on what I believe are two of the hardest-
working and longest-hour committees on this Hill, and that is the Rules 
Committee and the Judiciary Committee. Chairman Goodlatte is very 
thoughtful.
  We can disagree, Mr. Speaker, and I can understand my friend's 
frustration on issues of closed bills which do come and have been under 
both parties, but today's bills are not one of those. These two bills 
both have amendments that are offered on the floor by both parties. 
There are Republican amendments and there are Democrat amendments. This 
is not one of those.
  So I think, from the perspective of how process and regular order--
and we can go through those--I would stand with my chairman and 
Chairman Goodlatte on that issue that we are working toward, and it is 
something that really matters here.
  I think also, as we look at this, it is talking about grasping of 
straws. One of the things is we can get sidelined many times on looking 
at what could be or want to be and what we want to focus on. But also, 
it is a matter--as I come down here in this role many times, let's 
focus on the line right now, let's focus on the minute ahead, let's 
focus on the next vote, and that is

[[Page H8094]]

talking about these bills in this process.
  I thought it was interesting to say that these are solutions in 
search of a problem. It is really interesting to me that, undoubtedly, 
these solutions in search of a problem--I think the problem is when 
they have, especially under sue and settle, $9.6 billion annual cost, 
$500 million in the first year cost; Oil and Gas Rule, $738 million 
annually; $632 million annually for the Florida Nutrient Standards and 
Estuary Flowing Waters Rule; Boiler MACT, $3 billion. I mean, I could 
go on. And $90 billion for reconsideration of 2008 ozone.

  Let's make it very clear what sue and settle does. Sue and settle 
does not take the power for an agency to enter into a consent decree. 
Consent decrees are used often. The problem with this one is that when 
you have two parties on the same page suing, in essence, what amounts 
to one so that they can get a desired result without talking to the 
others who were affected, that is just wrong.
  It is like me taking another congressman, or you, Mr. Speaker, and 
saying: You know, let's work out a deal.
  But the reality is it is going to affect my friend from across the 
aisle, but we are not going to tell him. We are simply going to say: We 
are going to work our deal out. We are going to go to the Court. We are 
going to get the Court to sign off on it and we are going to implement 
everything that we have without proper insight and oversight.
  That is all that we are asking for. It is called fairness. I am not 
sure how you could be against that, unless you like the idea of writing 
regulatory law in cubicles down the street instead of here on the floor 
of the House.
  The other issue I see here is this issue of slush funds. We have 
talked about this, and the gentleman put 10 pages into the Record. He 
can put 49 into the Record; he can put 550 into the Record of eligible 
agencies for this money.
  The problem is not eligible agencies. Number one, they are not 
victims. Number two, they are not part of the suit, yet we are giving 
it at sometimes double the rate to the offenders. Those that the 
Justice Department said were doing wrong--let's get this clear. Like in 
the housing issue--said you are doing wrong in this mortgage issue.
  But what we are going to do, instead of giving the money at 1:1 back 
to victims, we are going to give it at 2:1 if you go to our preferred 
charity in donation form. It sounds like to me the only people who are 
getting problematic here are the victims of it; and the others of these 
pages of people who may or may not have political leanings or religious 
leanings or anything else, they are the recipient of the lottery.
  They said, ``We will go help these people; give us money,'' instead 
of saying this is an issue that needs to be dealt with in a settlement 
to the victims.
  It also has been said that this is just giving money to help those in 
those areas so that they can get back on their feet. But it also went 
further than that. There were two instances in particular that I can 
come up with: the Housing Council, which this body said we are not 
funding any longer, yet the administration used these donations to 
circumvent the appropriations process and fund it. That is not the role 
of the executive branch. That is an article I role.
  The electric vehicle subsidy, $2 billion, again, this body said no. 
They said: No worries. We will go get a settlement. We will just take 
the donations and we will fund something that Congress has already said 
no on.
  So it is easy to paint with broad strokes and say this is not 
important, this does not matter. But for some of us it does matter.
  Those stories--why people are so upset when they look at this town is 
they just remember what their old civic books told them: that there was 
a Congress, there was an executive branch, and there was a judicial 
branch; each required all to do their part.
  If we decide that it is too far down the road, let's bind the hands 
of the executive branch. We will do whatever. This is nothing except 
Congress saying this is what we are going to do. It is saying, this is 
what matters for us. And we may call it cheap; we may call it little; 
we may call it solutions in search of a problem, but you talk about the 
businessowners and the industries and the States who had to pay out on 
these sue and settle agreements.
  When you talk about the millions--the billions that were sent to 
Iran, I think there will be a lot of people, when you look at both 
sides of this case, who will say: Yes, Congress, I want you to stop 
this because this is the way it should be set up.
  That is why these bills are on the floor today. That is why we are 
taking them up. That is the reason we are bringing them forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 577 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment 
     of status of certain individuals who are long-term United 
     States residents and who entered the United States as 
     children and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for 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. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3440.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

[[Page H8095]]

     [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. 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. 2142.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 189, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 572]

                               YEAS--228

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     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
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     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
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     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

                               NAYS--189

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barletta
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bridenstine
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Carson (IN)
     Huizenga
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Marchant
     Reed
     Roskam
     Trott
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1337

  Mmes. NAPOLITANO, MURPHY of Florida, Mses. SANCHEZ, SHEA-PORTER, 
Messrs. GALLEGO, and AL GREEN of Texas 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. REED. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 572.
  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 is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 190, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 573]

                               AYES--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     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
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     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
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     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
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger

[[Page H8096]]


     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     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
     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--190

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

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barletta
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Griffith
     Huizenga
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Rooney, Francis
     Trott
     Wilson (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1344

  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.

                          ____________________