MOTION TO REFER; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 1
(House of Representatives - January 03, 2019)

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 H8-H17]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            MOTION TO REFER

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Brady of Texas moves to refer the resolution to a 
     select committee composed of the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader with instructions to report it forthwith back 
     to the House with the following amendment:
       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6.  Not later than January 1, 2019, 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. 22) to amend 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
     increase in the standard deduction, the increase in and 
     modifications of the child tax credit, and the repeal of the 
     deduction for personal exemptions contained in Public Law 
     115-97. 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 
     Ways and Means. 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. 7.  Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 22.

                            Motion to Table

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Mr. McGovern moves to lay on the table the motion to refer.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 197, not voting 5, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 3]

                               YEAS--230

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego

[[Page H9]]


     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--197

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bass
     Cardenas
     Smucker
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1606

  Messrs. KING of New York and ADERHOLT changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the minority leader or his designee--in 
this case, Mr. Cole--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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H. Res. 5 and H. Res. 6.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by a 10-million-vote margin, the American 
people entrusted Democrats to run this body. So it is finally a new day 
for this Congress, and this rules package is our first opportunity to 
chart a new course.
  In a sign that we intend to run this place differently, these ideas 
were developed from the bottom up, not the top down. We asked every 
Member for their ideas, from the longest serving to the newly elected, 
Democrats and Republicans alike.
  We spoke to experts, inside and outside this Congress, from every 
House committee, from offices like the Parliamentarian and the General 
Counsel, from the Progressive Caucus and the Black Caucus to the 
Hispanic Caucus, the Blue Dog Coalition and the bipartisan Problem 
Solvers Caucus, and from outside groups engaged on these issues.
  We spent months vetting suggestions and came up with a final package 
that reflects all corners of the Democratic Caucus and this Congress.
  Never before has a rules package been developed like this. Our 
collaborative process made the final product a much stronger one. It 
modernizes this Chamber in five key ways.
  First, it restores the people's voice by aligning Congress' agenda 
with the priorities of the American people. That includes enabling this 
House to defend the Affordable Care Act's preexisting conditions 
coverage; setting up consideration of H.R. 1, a historic set of reforms 
to reduce money in politics; creating a Select Committee on the Climate 
Crisis so we no longer ignore the defining issues we all face; ending 
the Holman rule to protect Federal workers; strengthening 
representation by giving rights to Delegates and the Resident 
Commissioner in the Committee of the Whole and ensuring they can be 
appointed to joint committees; and honoring our commitment to workers 
by putting ``labor'' back in the Committee on Education and Labor.
  Second, it restores the legislative process by returning to regular 
order and abiding by the principle that good ideas should finally be 
debated and voted on again. That includes establishing a real 72-hour 
rule so Members of Congress have time to actually read the major bills 
they are voting on, requiring bills to have a hearing and a markup 
before they go through the Rules Committee and to the floor, and 
creating a truly bipartisan select committee to modernize Congress and 
keep ourselves accountable so that this place actually works for the 
American people.
  Third, it restores oversight and ethics by cleaning up Washington, 
and it subjects the Trump administration to something it has never had: 
real oversight. That means making commonsense changes like prohibiting 
Members of Congress and staff from serving on boards of publicly traded 
companies, making sure non-disclosure agreements aren't used to prevent 
people here from speaking out about possible wrongdoing, providing 
assistance and training to help congressional offices properly protect 
whistleblowers, and setting a policy that Members indicted for serious 
crimes should resign from leadership roles and committee assignments.
  Fourth, it restores budget rules by preventing Members from using the 
debt ceiling as a political weapon, ending the sham budgetary policy of 
CutGo that pretends that tax cuts somehow pay for themselves, and 
preventing our Federal lands from being given away for free.
  Fifth, it restores inclusion to ensure Congress reflects the 
diversity of the American people, people of all backgrounds, including 
women and the LGBTQ community. That includes banning discrimination on 
the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, creating a first-
ever diversity office so the workers here are as diverse as the

[[Page H10]]

real world, clarifying the rules so that Members and staff are finally 
allowed to wear religious headwear on the House floor and requiring 
Members to reimburse taxpayers for discrimination settlements.
  Those are just some of the many rules changes that are included here, 
and I am especially proud that we have also included language that 
ensures the direct vote on privileged war powers resolutions and 
directs the House Office of General Counsel to explore all possible 
legal options for responding to the administration's attempt to 
circumvent Congress and limit access to SNAP for hundreds of thousands 
of hungry Americans, because this majority will not sit idly by as the 
Trump administration beats up on poor people.

  Each change is the result of a real exchange of ideas, an honest 
attempt at unrigging the rules so that the people's House actually 
works for the people again.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this rules package isn't some panacea that will fix 
all our problems. As important as it is, there is something that is 
even more important, and that is how we conduct ourselves day to day, 
week after week, and year after year, because you can't legislate 
civility.
  As chairman of the Rules Committee, I am ready to do my part to 
institute a more accommodating process, one that gives all Members a 
voice and brings the committee back to the days where big ideas were 
actually debated, where Members were treated with respect, and where 
the discourse wasn't so coarse.
  I am not naive, Mr. Speaker. I know that, even if this House elevates 
the discourse here, we cannot control the other branches of government. 
The Senate will work its will, and the President may still reach for 
his phone to tweet insults and to name-call. But we can and we should 
be the example of how Congress should operate, and I am proud that this 
Democratic majority has developed a historic rules package that will 
immediately help restore integrity to this institution.
  I would like to thank the Office of the Parliamentarian and the 
Office of the Legislative Counsel for their technical assistance in 
drafting this package. Their hard work and their professionalism is a 
credit to this House.
  I also want to thank the incredible staff of the Rules Committee, 
which spent countless hours trying to help assemble all these ideas, 
vet these ideas, and put this package together.
  This rule also includes language that will allow us to finally vote 
on reopening the government on day one of this new Congress.

                              {time}  1615

  Bills were negotiated in a bipartisan way with the Senate that would 
bring an end to the President's unnecessary and costly shutdown. Not a 
single penny is included for any border wall. It is that simple.
  Both sides should agree on this. No part of our government should be 
shut down over the President's obsession with a border wall.
  Mr. Speaker, we can rebuild this place and restore integrity again, 
and that starts with voting in favor of this rule, the underlying rules 
package, and the legislation to finally end the Trump shutdown. Let's 
get this done so we can get to work on behalf of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee of the Republican leader, and I 
thank Chairman McGovern for yielding me 30 minutes.
  First and foremost, I welcome my good friend, Mr. McGovern, and 
congratulate him on being named the chairman of the Rules Committee. 
While he and I have been on opposite sides of the Rules Committee dais 
for years, I know him as a passionate advocate for his beliefs and as a 
good friend. He and his staff have already been great to work with as 
we start the new Congress, and I am very much looking forward to 
working with him in our new roles at the Rules Committee this Congress.
  However, it is unfortunate that I rise today to oppose the first 
measure to be put forth by my friend. I know the gentleman from 
Massachusetts cares deeply about this institution and wants nothing 
more than to foster an open and fair process.
  Over the years, he has called for more open rules, more amendments, 
and more debate time, so it is a little surprising that this resolution 
and the resolution we will consider later provide for limited debate in 
some instances, closed rules, and what Democrats in the past have so 
fondly referred to as martial law. I understand there are 
justifications for these decisions, but I find it noteworthy that the 
first measures out of the gate under the majority include these 
provisions.
  This measure, House Resolution 5, makes in order both the Democrat 
rules package to govern the 116th Congress and separate appropriations 
measures to fund the government. The rules package to start a new 
Congress is always an opportunity to start fresh and improve the 
institution.
  While I applaud certain ideas in this rules package, as a whole, the 
package does not rise to that lofty goal. There are some good 
bipartisan ideas in this package for improving the institution, but, on 
the whole, the package reflects only Democrat priorities. For that 
reason, I will be opposing it.
  In the spirit of bipartisanship, I will first point out areas of 
agreement. As I said previously, there are some good ideas in this 
package, and my friend from Massachusetts should be applauded for 
including them. Indeed, many of these ideas are ones Republicans had 
previously utilized in Congresses past.
  In the last Congress, we maintained the practice of requiring 
committees to hold a Member Day hearing, where members who were not on 
a specific committee could come before the committee to talk about 
their pieces of legislation falling under that committee's 
jurisdiction. I am gratified my Democrat friends are seeking to 
continue that practice.
  We are also gratified to see that the standard for committee markup 
notices will be 3 business days. This has been the practice, and I am 
happy to see my friends making it official in the rules.
  We also support the idea of a Select Committee on the Modernization 
of Congress. This new select committee will have 12 members, evenly 
divided among Republicans and Democrats, and will be charged with 
investigating, studying, and making recommendations on modernizing 
Congress.
  While this provision is not perfect and would have been better had it 
included the Senate, this will give the House a chance to develop and 
improve our processes and modernize the institution. I will have more 
to say on this idea tomorrow, but, for now, I think many of my 
Republican colleagues will certainly be inclined to support it.
  I would also like to point out a few additional good ideas that my 
friends have included that we approach with a tone of skeptical 
optimism.
  First, the majority is requiring that every bill that comes to the 
Rules Committee have been the subject of a hearing or a markup. I 
genuinely hope this produces thoughtful legislation. I would point out 
that the hearing requirement is met merely by a committee of 
jurisdiction including a list of hearings that were used to develop 
that bill in the committee report. I am hopeful that committees take 
this requirement seriously and hold hearings this Congress directly 
related to the measures, as opposed to hearings loosely connected to 
the legislation or subject matter.
  Second, I believe many Members on both sides of the aisle support the 
spirit behind the Consensus Calendar. Under this provision, bills that 
receive 290 cosponsors and that have not been reported out by the 
committee of jurisdiction can receive a floor vote. In general, 
Republicans think this is a good idea, but we will be interested to see 
how it will work in practice and if it will yield the desired results.
  Third, my friends are seeking to replace the existing 3-day notice 
with a 72-hour notice rule. Under this rule, they must post the text of 
any legislation to be considered on the floor 72 hours before it comes 
to a vote.
  Of course, as my friend knows, legislation is sometimes posted late 
at night or in the early hours of the morning, and I am hopeful that 
this will not mean a lot of late-night legislating or attempts to pass 
bills right as the 72 hours expires. In situations where the 72 hours 
lands us at midnight, I am hopeful the majority will

[[Page H11]]

view the 72 hours as a minimum and will wait to hold votes until the 
light of day, as the American people deserve.

  As my friend also knows, he and I have had discussions off the floor 
about the impact of this provision in the rule that could impact the 
inclusion of minority views, and I appreciate him working with me on 
legislative history clarifying that provision and ensuring that the 
rule is in no way intended to suppress minority or dissenting views. As 
with the consensus calendar, we are interested to see how these 
provisions will work in practice.
  Mr. Speaker, now that I have let my good friend know what he got 
right, it is time for me to let him know where we think he went wrong.
  First and foremost, the Democratic rules package repeals a lot of the 
critical fiscal responsibility measures that Republicans have adhered 
to in years past. The repeal of these measures is undoubtedly intended 
to make it easier to do what Democrats have so often promised to do: 
spend more money, raise taxes to cover it, and repeat the cycle.
  This is a recipe for driving our Nation deeper and deeper into debt. 
If we fail to keep our fiscal house in order, it will threaten the 
stability of our economy, our national security, and the American way 
of life. Unfortunately, I believe these rules changes are a threat to 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this point is so important that I want to list 
out the fiscal responsibility measures that Democrats are eliminating.
  First, Democrats are repealing what we call the CutGo under 
Republican majorities, which meant, in order to spend money, we had to 
cut money. Democrats are replacing it with a paygo rule, which allows 
them to offset the cost of measures by raising revenue or taxing 
Americans.
  They are eliminating the requirement that the House agree by at least 
a three-fifths supermajority to raise revenue through additional 
Federal income taxes. This will make it easier for Democrats to tax 
Americans to pay for their expensive policies.
  The rules package brings back the so-called Gephardt rule and creates 
a provision that says that when the House passes a budget resolution--
not both Chambers--a separate joint resolution suspending the Federal 
debt ceiling through September 30 of that year is also deemed to have 
passed the House.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I think this is emblematic of what the 
Democrats wish to accomplish. The Gephardt rule sweeps the national 
debt ceiling under a rug and ensures that Democrats will be able to 
spend with impunity, without worrying about hitting the limit on the 
national credit card. I, for one, think this is a bad practice and bad 
policy and will lead only to more and more unnecessary deficit 
spending.
  The rules package we are considering today also authorizes the House 
to intervene in the Texas v. United States lawsuit over the legality of 
the Affordable Care Act. I cannot think of a single member on the 
Republican side who wants to give the Speaker this authority.
  The same can be said for the provision authorizing the Office of 
Legal Counsel to explore options for responding to a Department of 
Agriculture proposed rulemaking over SNAP benefits for able-bodied 
adults. Inconceivably, this provision in the rules is also hopelessly 
vague and represents a blanket grant of authority to simply do 
something without saying what.
  Finally, and most notably, the Democrats are choosing to respond to 
the demands of one wing of their caucus by establishing a Select 
Committee on the Climate Crisis to study and make recommendations on 
climate change.
  This committee is ill-conceived from the start. It takes away 
jurisdiction from standing committees in the House and gives it to a 
brand new panel rigged with a supermajority of Democrats. Indeed, we do 
not know where exactly the jurisdiction of this panel begins and ends, 
since it is conceivable it could dig into all kinds of areas.
  Unlike most other committees in the House, this one does not adhere 
to the negotiated ratio of membership, and, instead, it calls for nine 
Democrats and six Republicans. The Democrats have also failed to tell 
us how this new panel will be funded, where the money for it will come 
from, or how it will be used.
  Again, I cannot think of a single Republican who thinks this new 
panel is a good idea. Earlier in my statement, I used the phrase 
``skeptical optimism'' to describe how I would approach some of the 
rules changes my friends are proposing. With this proposal, I can 
approach it with merely skepticism.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I would be 
remiss if I did not shift gears and address the other major proposal 
covered by the rule. My Democratic friends are seeking to make in order 
on the floor an appropriations package to reopen the government 
agencies that are currently affected by the shutdown.
  While I applaud them for seeking to fully fund the government, which 
is the single highest priority of any Member of Congress, they have 
done so in the worst way possible, and I will be opposing the package.
  To start, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are proposing a package of six 
bills covering the bulk of the closed agencies and are proposing to 
fund them for the full fiscal year. Unfortunately, what the Democrats 
have done is put up a package of six bills produced by the Senate. If 
the House chooses to pass these bills, we will be abrogating any and 
all ability for the House to affect the final spending package. None of 
these six bills reflect any work done by the House Appropriations 
Committee or the House at large, and I, for one, do not think it wise 
to surrender all ability to produce a final product like that.
  Our own priorities as a coequal house of Congress will not be 
represented in this bill, and, instead, we merely are being given only 
the opportunity to vote on what the Senate has produced.
  Second, the Democrats are proposing a continuing resolution to fund 
the Department of Homeland Security through February 8. This, again, is 
an ill-conceived idea. It simply will kick the can down the road on 
fully funding the department through the fiscal year. It does not 
provide any additional money for border security, which Americans have 
told us time and time again that they want and need.

  Most notably, this bill is part of a package that the Senate will not 
pass and the President will not sign. Why would we surrender our 
authority and our ability to produce a legislative product on a 
quixotic effort that is going nowhere?
  While I appreciate the attempt by my Democratic colleagues to reopen 
the government, I do not think the package is an appropriate way to do 
so, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say again how gratified I am that 
I will be working closely with my friend from Massachusetts during this 
Congress. I have said some critical things about the rule he is placing 
on the floor, but let no one think that my disagreements with him over 
matters of policy or procedure reflect how I feel about him as a 
person.
  As he so kindly noted last week, we can disagree without being 
disagreeable. I look forward to attempting to live up to those words as 
we work together in the coming 2 years. With that, I urge opposition to 
the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his kind words. 
My mother and father are up in the gallery, so they are very impressed 
that you said nice things about me.
  I am going to say nice things about you, too, but I was saving it 
until the end to see the tone of your speech. But I appreciate very 
much what you said.
  Let me just make a couple of statements in response.
  The gentleman made mention about martial law, and, yes, there is 
limited martial law or same-day authority in this package. I am going 
to say to the gentleman that there should be. If there ever was a time 
to move legislation quickly, it is while nearly 800,000 Federal 
employees, including our law enforcement officers, like FBI and DEA and 
CBP agents, are going without a paycheck.
  Enough is enough. We need to open the government, and same-day 
authority for appropriations bills only lets us do that as quickly as 
we are able to.
  I just want to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that 
you had blanket martial law authority before

[[Page H12]]

the holidays. I even voted for the rule providing for it. We did that 
so that we could move quickly to make sure hardworking Americans 
weren't left without a paycheck over Christmas.
  But what did you do instead of utilizing that same-day authority to 
consider a bill to keep the government open? That is not what you did. 
You held an emergency Rules Committee meeting on a bill to define 
natural cheese. That was the priority, apparently, in the Rules 
Committee. I mean, seriously. This may seem like a novel concept to my 
Republican friends, but this is exactly what responsible governance 
looks like.
  Not having the ability to fund government as expeditiously as 
possible and to clean up this Republican mess would be an abdication of 
our duty as a new Democratic House majority to keep the lights on for 
the American people's government. I don't recall--maybe you can correct 
me--in history, when we have ever started a new Congress in a shutdown 
that was caused by the previous Congress.

                              {time}  1630

  I mean, I would have thought that my friends would have wanted to 
kind of clean things up before they left town, but they didn't do that. 
I was here. I was on the floor trying to get the attention of the 
presiding Speaker to allow us to bring up a continuing resolution to 
keep the government running, and I was routinely not recognized.
  I mean, this is crazy. The bills that we are talking about were 
approved overwhelmingly by either the Senate Appropriations Committee 
or the entire Senate. There is, like, no controversy on these bills. 
And most of these bills have nothing to do with border security, quite 
frankly. Yet, the President of the United States is holding a big chunk 
of our government hostage because he is having a temper tantrum, and it 
just has to stop.
  So we are going to do what the American people want us to do. We are 
going to expeditiously bring before this Congress legislation to reopen 
the government, and we hope to do that. I hope my friends on the other 
side of the aisle will join with us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Castor), the distinguished chairwoman of the new Select Committee on 
the Climate Crisis.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the House 
Rules Chairman, Jim McGovern, for crafting a transformative rules 
package that we hope will re-instill confidence of the American people 
in this Congress; confidence that we can address the challenges that 
our country faces, whether it is opening the government, or it is 
protecting our neighbors who have preexisting health conditions, and 
making a statement about ethics in government as a priority.
  But I want to thank Chairman McGovern and Speaker Pelosi especially 
for re-instituting the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.
  A few years ago, in 2007, Speaker Pelosi instituted the Select 
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. When the 
Republicans took over in 2010, they dismissed the committee. They 
wouldn't have hearings. Meanwhile, the cost of the changing climate 
escalated.
  I come from the State of Florida where we are seeing enormous cost, 
not even counting the extreme weather events. This is the challenge of 
our time.
  So, in this rules package, the Democrats will re-institute a climate 
change committee called the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. In 
doing so, we intend to press for urgent action in defense of America 
and our way of life.
  We want dramatic reductions in carbon pollution. We want to make 
clean energy a pillar of our economy and create the green jobs of today 
and the future. You see, we have a moral obligation to our children and 
future generations to do this.
  So, again, Chairman McGovern, my Democratic colleagues, Speaker 
Pelosi, thank you for listening, heeding the calls of the American 
people. We will tackle this challenge, and we need your help, America.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the students and workers of today and 
tomorrow, I rise in opposition to this rules package.
  It has become tradition in the House that when Republicans are in the 
majority, we have the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and 
when the Democrats are in the majority we have the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  Some assign political motivations to these names. They point out the 
old traditional bond between organized labor and the establishment 
Democrat Party, but it is far more serious than that. Reverting to the 
committee's old name is choosing to live in the past.
  Republicans value traditions. We value institutions, but we know we 
cannot afford to go back.
  Changing the committee's name from workforce to labor has not only 
political ramifications but also reflects how we view our fellow 
citizens. It sends a message to the people we represent that we are 
interested only in serving some professions. If they don't consider 
themselves laborers, if they choose to identify as part of another 
demographic or class, or if they pursue career changes, they need not 
look to us.
  Mr. Speaker, that should not be the case.
  Republicans on the Education and Workforce Committee have stayed true 
to key principles in this regard. We believe all education is career 
education. We believe every American has God-given talents which they 
should have the freedom and opportunity to pursue, and we believe that 
all work is valuable.
  The word ``labor'' harkens back to a time when work was little more 
than a burden to carry, not a means to a brighter future, not a 
manifestation of a woman or man's talents and skills.
  No one wants to move backward. We may have different ideas about how 
to move forward, but no one should want to turn back the clock, at 
least no one on this side of the aisle.
  Words matter. The name of such a vitally important body as the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce matters very much. We must 
govern with an eye toward to the future and not be bound to an 
unhealthy allegiance to those who would keep us in the past. For that 
reason, among many others, we must oppose this rules package.
  And I, too, want to give my congratulations to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, and tell him I admire him very much for his passion and 
commitment, and look forward to working with him in his new capacity.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman for her kind comments, and I agree 
with her that words matter. And I would hope that she and others on the 
other side of the aisle would remember that the name of our party is 
the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party, and we would appreciate 
the respect of calling us by what our real name is.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, when we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the resolution.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment, along 
with extraneous material, in the Record immediately prior to the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Walden) to explain the amendment.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I come here today with a very simple request 
and in the spirit of this new Congress and a fresh start.
  Let us come together and make sure that those Americans with 
preexisting health conditions are protected, period.
  Republicans have language to protect people with preexisting health 
conditions which we believe should be included in this rules package. 
But that can only happen if the new Democratic majority allows it.
  Let me explain why it is needed at this time. Last year, 20 State 
attorneys general filed a lawsuit against ObamaCare arguing that the 
law's individual mandate is unconstitutional

[[Page H13]]

and, therefore, the entire law is unconstitutional.
  On December 14 of last year, a Federal judge in Texas agreed with the 
plaintiffs and issued a summary judgment stating: ``The individual 
mandate is essential to and inseverable from the other provisions of 
the ACA'' therefore, the judge has ruled the entire Affordable Care Act 
is unconstitutional.
  It is important to note that the judge's decision does not 
immediately end ObamaCare and will not affect the insurance coverage or 
premiums for 2019. And, in fact, the judge has ordered a stay of his 
earlier ruling pending appeal.
  Additionally, the ruling is already being appealed by other attorneys 
general from States that had intervened in the lawsuit to defend 
ObamaCare, and that means several legal steps remain before the courts 
reach a final conclusion where the ruling could be reversed.
  Even though these State AGs are already intervening in the case, the 
Democratic rules package includes a provision authorizing the House 
General Counsel to also intervene in the case. That effort does not 
preserve preexisting condition protections. The Republican proposal 
would.
  Put simply, the Texas court ruled that ObamaCare's individual mandate 
is unconstitutional.
  Now, we also know it didn't work. The individual mandate didn't live 
up to its promise. We were told that the individual mandate would 
encourage enrollment. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office argued 
24 million Americans would enroll in ObamaCare by 2018, but less than 
half that number actually enrolled and paid for their coverage. Twelve 
million others paid the penalty or claimed an exemption.
  Moreover, those that have signed up have seen skyrocketing premiums 
and thousands of dollars in deductibles. Preexisting condition 
protections are greatly diminished when you cannot afford your premiums 
or your deductible.
  Republicans have long supported preexisting condition protection for 
Americans. In fact, in 2016, our healthcare agenda, A Better Way: Our 
Vision for a Confident America, we clearly stated: ``No American should 
ever be denied coverage or face a coverage exclusion on the basis of a 
preexisting condition. Our plan ensures every American, healthy or 
sick, will have the comfort of knowing they can never be denied a plan 
from a health insurer.''
  It was also one of my first bills as chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee that I introduced in February of 2017. It required 
health insurers to allow every eligible applicant to enroll in their 
plans, regardless of factors like health status, age, or income, and it 
also prohibited benefit exclusions and banned health status 
underwriting.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. WALDEN. Effectively, that would ensure these important patient 
protections if ObamaCare were no longer the law. During the floor 
debate on the AHCA, the leaders of our party made clear we supported 
protections for those with preexisting conditions. That is our 
position, period.
  So today, we, once again, reinforce our support of people with 
preexisting conditions. Our language simply says Congress should 
produce legislation that guarantees no American citizen can be denied 
health insurance coverage as a result of a previous illness or health 
status, and it guarantees no American citizen can be charged higher 
premiums or cost sharing as a result of a previous illness or health 
status; thus, ensuring affordable health coverage for those with 
preexisting conditions.
  But we can only offer that if the Democratic majority allows it, and 
we would do so if the previous question is defeated.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have to be honest with you, I am almost speechless. I mean, the 
gentleman from Oregon takes my breath away with his previous question 
amendment.
  I want to remind the gentleman that it was the Democrats that 
actually put in protections for people with preexisting conditions. We 
did so over the objections of the Republicans and, for almost a decade 
now, while my friends were in charge, they, time and time and time 
again tried to take away people's healthcare protections, including 
protections for people with preexisting conditions.
  This lawsuit, this judgment in Texas that recently came about that 
threatens people's healthcare protections was filed by the Republicans. 
I mean, they have been in charge of the House and the Senate and the 
White House, and they have done nothing to protect people with 
preexisting conditions. They have just tried to take these protections 
away.

  Now, I get it. We heard loud and clear in the last election that 
people don't agree with you. They don't agree with you. And we are 
going to do everything we can to protect people with preexisting 
conditions and to expand healthcare protections for everybody in this 
country because we believe that healthcare is a right and not a 
privilege.
  So when I hear my friends come here with a procedural motion, you 
know, that somehow they want to be the champions for people who are 
worried about their healthcare coverage, it is laughable.
  Mr. WALDEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I 
don't agree with them, obviously, but I haven't heard the gentleman's 
objections to the language we proposed to offer to your rules package 
that already has different healthcare provisions in it. Is there 
anything here the gentleman objects to allowing us to offer?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we are going to do 
something that my friends on the other side of the aisle did not do. We 
are going to legislate in a professional and proper manner. And as we 
debate healthcare in the future, it is going to go through regular 
order. We are going to take on, immediately right now, some of these 
court cases that we think present a danger to the American people.
  But the idea that the Republican friends are coming to the floor 
saying let's protect people with preexisting conditions, you know what? 
The American people don't believe it. That was the message in the last 
election. That was the message, because they know that dozens and 
dozens and dozens of times, Republicans came to this floor, used every 
trick in the book to try to undo the Affordable Care Act and, 
thankfully, you failed. And we put these protections in place and we 
will make sure they stay in place.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
great State of Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Cole, for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I will try to do this quickly. We are removing, in the 
Democratic Party rules package, macroeconomic analysis.
  Now, we all know right now the methodology used at Joint Tax, CBO. 
They actually do some of it no matter what, and they have long before 
it was put into the rules years ago.
  My great concern is, by the removal, I actually think we are sort of 
being a bit antimath, antiscience, antiopenness, antifacts, because 
walk through a couple examples with me.
  Tomorrow we double the tax on cigarettes. Do you get double the tax 
revenue? Of course not. People stop smoking.
  If there is a green agenda or when we are going to see paygo numbers, 
are we allowed to do macroeconomic analysis on that to tell us the 
economic effects?
  In other words, policy matters, and if we are going to engage in 
policy around here that changes the economic growth rates, that also 
changes tax revenues for the positive or the negative. Should we be 
honest about that?
  The rules package here strips the requirement that, on important 
legislation, we get a macroeconomic analysis, and that is my concern.
  For all of us who make public policy, we should have honest math, and 
we

[[Page H14]]

should have math to understand the cascade effect: What are the effects 
in the economy? It is just that if we are going to make public policy, 
let's actually have the math that backs it up.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the gentleman.
  I appreciate his point, but I just want to remind him that, while his 
party was in power, time and time and time again, I think I have lost 
count of how many bills came to this floor without a CBO score, never 
mind a dynamic score.
  Serving on the Rules Committee, I know of at least 68 bills in this 
last Congress that came to the Rules Committee that never had a hearing 
in a committee or a markup in a committee of jurisdiction.
  So we are going to go back to the committee process. We are going to 
make committees do their work. We are going to require that there be 
hearings on bills and markups on bills and have this place behave in 
the manner in which the American people expect it to.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Conaway), a distinguished gentleman and my good friend.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, both the chairman and ranking member of the 
Rules Committee have addressed, literally, a rule tucked away on page 
31 with respect to going after the Secretary of Agriculture's attempts 
to change the rules with respect to SNAP. My good colleague from 
Massachusetts is a master at cloaking this issue, any change to SNAP, 
as if Republicans are beating up on poor people.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule that the Secretary of Agriculture is proposing 
mirrors the House requirements with respect to changing waivers on SNAP 
that this House passed back in June, the House version of the farm 
bill.
  Throughout the entire conversation I had with our Senate colleagues 
on negotiating the conference report, both the Senate Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry chairman as well as the ranking member, and 
particularly the ranking member, the Democrat, reminded me over and 
over and over that Secretary Perdue had, in fact, all of the authority 
he needed to do what we wanted to do on the House bill; therefore, the 
House version was unnecessary and Secretary Perdue could move this 
forward.
  This rule addresses a-bods, able-bodied adults, people between the 
ages of 18 and 49 without dependents. Most folks would look at them and 
say that is a worker.
  Well, there is waiver abuse. Waiving the 20-hour-a-week work 
requirement has been abused by the system. I want to point out, until 
last September, the entire State of California was under work waiver, 
and we have, yet, a 4 percent unemployment rate across this Nation. It 
makes no sense.
  So what Secretary Perdue does is say, look, if you are willing to 
help yourself by working 20 hours a week, then you will, as an a-bod, 
be able to stay on food stamps, unlimited. If you are unwilling to help 
yourself, demonstrate that you can help yourself, then your SNAP 
requirements will be limited to 3 months out of every 36.
  The impact it would have is this: With the now famous YouTube show, 
or wherever I saw it, we have a 27-year-old surfer from California who 
loves to surf--fantastic--but he doesn't like to work, but he is on 
food stamps. The waiver of the work requirement in California allows 
him to stay on food stamps an unlimited amount of time, and yet he 
doesn't have to work.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well as my colleagues 
in the Senate would voraciously defend the work requirement that is 
currently in law, 20 hours a week; they just don't want to defend it. 
This rule will allow them to try to supercede and intervene on behalf 
of requiring able-bodied adults to work.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this rule and oppose the 
underlying rule package.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the gentleman from Texas, the now 
ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, this provision wasn't 
tucked away. In fact, we did a press release on it. We want everybody 
to know that we are going to hold this administration accountable if 
they go against what the Congress passed in the farm bill.
  The Congress didn't pass what the gentleman just said. In fact, my 
friend from Texas said in an interview last year that the Secretary of 
Agriculture doesn't have the authority to fix waivers. Maybe he has 
changed his mind.
  But here is the deal, and if the Secretary is watching, I want to be 
very, very clear: If, in fact, he or this administration go after poor 
people, if they try to take away their food, if they try to undercut 
their food security, we are coming after them. We are going to hold 
them accountable. The days of turning a blind eye to attacks on poor 
people are over, plain and simple.
  So this is not a provision that was tucked away. It was not a 
provision that was hidden. In fact, we did a press release on it. I 
want everybody to know about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if my friend is.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to begin again by congratulating my 
good friend on assuming this very important position of responsibility 
as chairman of the House Rules Committee.
  It is particularly, I think, notable that he began his career of 
public service as a staff member on this very committee. So I think 
moving from staff member to ranking member and to chairman is something 
my friend should be very proud of and all of us in the House should be 
proud of as well. It says wonderful things about him.
  Now, while the rules package includes some very good ideas, I am 
going to urge all Members to oppose the rule. Some of the provisions, 
obviously, that I mentioned in my remarks Republicans certainly can 
support. It, unfortunately, however, includes too many measures that we 
cannot.
  The rule today removes important fiscal responsibility measures from 
the House rules, establishes a partisan Select Committee on the Climate 
Crisis, and grants the Speaker the power to intervene in a lawsuit over 
the legality of the ACA.
  It also makes in order an appropriations package, frankly, as an 
appropriator, I cannot support. The idea that the House would simply 
yield to the Senate and accept, without change, bills that the Senate 
has passed even though, frankly, there had been ongoing conferences and 
many changes have been agreed to is something that I think we should 
never do in this particular body.
  For these and the reasons I have discussed here, I urge a ``no'' vote 
on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on the previous question, a ``no'' on 
the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the new ranking member of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Cole. It has been a pleasure to be down here 
debating with him here today.
  It is kind of strange to close debate. I kind of like it. I haven't 
been able to do it for a long time.
  We have worked side by side on this committee for many years. We have 
also worked in Congress on a lot of important issues that we both care 
about, like the Authorization for Use of Military Force. I appreciate 
his work on the Appropriations Committee. I think nobody knows more 
about the appropriations process or respects that process more than the 
gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. Speaker, he is not only a colleague, but I consider him a friend. 
We don't agree on everything, but when we disagree, Congressman Cole is 
always very respectful. As I said before, he disagrees without being 
disagreeable, and all while still fighting for the ideas and issues 
that he cares deeply about. Frankly, in this day and age, that is a 
breath of fresh air, and I look forward to continuing to work with him 
on the committee in this Congress. I expect that we will be able to 
forge a relationship and, hopefully, be able to do things differently. 
That is my hope.

[[Page H15]]

  Now, Mr. Speaker, these rules that are contained in the rules package 
are historic. There has never been a process like this one before, and 
there has never been a rules package like this before. It is 
unprecedented.
  Our Speaker, who I am proud to have just elected, tasked me with 
soliciting Members' feedback for this rules package months ago, and 
working with the members of our committee, we did just that.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank her again for the opportunity. I think her 
leadership on this has been extraordinary. She has empowered all of our 
Members to get involved, and she has led a collaborative process that 
gave all Members a voice.
  These changes incorporate ideas from every corner of our Caucus. As I 
said before, there are many ideas that have come from Republicans as 
well, and they come from Members that represent urban areas and 
suburban areas and rural areas.
  I am a progressive. I am a liberal. My colleagues on the other side 
know that. There are changes here that we have been fighting for for 
years.
  I know my Republican colleagues wouldn't have included some of these 
priorities, like healthcare and climate change, if they were drafting 
their own package, and that is okay. I get it.
  The American people have entrusted Democrats to run this institution, 
and so this is a rules package the majority should be proud to support; 
but I hope some of my friends in the minority will as well, because 
there are major reforms to the legislative process that even they agree 
should be made.
  There is a bipartisan agreement that we need to change how this place 
is run. This is our chance. On day one of this Congress, let's vote for 
this rule and the underlying rules package and for measures ending the 
Trump shutdown so we can get the American people who have been 
displaced back to work and get them a paycheck and give them the kind 
of Congress that they have demanded.
  Mr. Speaker, the reason why I also think this deserves bipartisan 
support is because we are trying, in good faith, to have a more 
accommodating Rules Committee, to have a more accommodating process.
  In the previous Congress, which unfortunately went down in history as 
the most closed Congress in American history, Members on both sides--
not just Democrats, but Republicans--were routinely shut out. And I 
know my colleague from Oklahoma didn't always approve of that tactic, 
but the bottom line is that was the fact, and I think that needs to 
change.

  We need to be willing on our side to allow ideas that we may have 
issues with, that we may disagree with. You don't always have to rig 
the rules in order to get the end product you want.
  So I believe in a fair fight. We believe that important ideas, even 
ideas we disagree with, ought to be brought to the floor. When we 
disagree with them, we are going to fight and try to defeat them on the 
floor. But out of respect and out of the belief that everybody in this 
Chamber matters, we need to change the way we have done business.
  So in that spirit, I ask the Members of this House, both Democrats 
and Republicans, to vote on this rule and support the underlying rules 
package.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 5 Offered by Mr. Cole, Mr. Walden, and Mr. Brady 
                                of Texas

     SEC. ___. PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS.

       Not later than January 31, 2019, the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means shall report 
     to the House a joint resolution that is consistent with the 
     United States Constitution and relevant Supreme Court cases 
     that--
       (1) guarantees no American citizen can be denied health 
     insurance coverage as the result of a previous illness or 
     health status; and
       (2) guarantees no American citizen can be charged higher 
     premiums or cost sharing as the result of a previous illness 
     or health status, thus ensuring affordable health coverage 
     for those with pre-existing conditions.

 (The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority 
  on multiple occasions throughout the 115th Congress. Only political 
                     affiliation has been changed.)

        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 Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, 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 Democrat majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 197, not voting 2, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 4]

                               YEAS--233

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb

[[Page H16]]


     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--197

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Omar
     Smucker

                              {time}  1725

  Mr. McCARTHY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to commit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Cole moves that the resolution (H. Res. 5) be committed 
     to a select committee composed of the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader with instructions to report back the same to 
     the House forthwith with only an amendment added at the end 
     providing for the consideration of H. Res. 11, introduced by 
     Mr. McCarthy of California.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to commit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 197, 
nays 232, not voting 3, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 5]

                               YEAS--197

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--232

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires

[[Page H17]]


     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brindisi
     Sewell (AL)
     Smucker

                              {time}  1744

  Mr. SHERMAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to commit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 194, not voting 4, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 6]

                               YEAS--234

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--194

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Fulcher
     Marchant
     Smucker
     Wittman

                              {time}  1801

  Mr. RICE of South Carolina changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.

                          ____________________