November 14, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 182 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session
All in House sectionPrev40 of 92Next
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HR. 4863, UNITED STATES EXPORT FINANCE AGENCY ACT OF 2019; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 182
(House of Representatives - November 14, 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 H8838-H8845] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] {time} 1230 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HR. 4863, UNITED STATES EXPORT FINANCE AGENCY ACT OF 2019; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 695 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 695 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. 4863) to promote the competitiveness of the United States, to reform and reauthorize the United States Export Finance Agency, 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 Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-36 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and 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 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 on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 2. Section 201 of House Resolution 6 is amended as follows: (1) In subsection (f)(3), strike ``At the conclusion of the first session of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress'' and insert ``By October 30, 2020''. (2) In subsection (g)(1), strike ``on February 1, 2020'' and insert ``at the conclusion of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress''. Sec. 3. House Resolution 661 is hereby adopted. Sec. 4. House Resolution 693 is hereby adopted. Sec. 5. (a) At any time on the legislative day of Thursday, November 21, 2019, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House a motion to discharge the Committee on Foreign Affairs from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 70) directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Syrian Arab Republic that have not been authorized by Congress, if offered by Representative Gabbard of Hawaii. The motion shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion except 20 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Gabbard of Hawaii and an opponent. The question of adoption of the motion may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX. (b) The provisions of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546) shall not apply during the remainder of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress to House Concurrent Resolution 70. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), pending which I yield myself such time [[Page H8839]] as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection. Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 695, providing for the consideration of H.R. 4863, the United States Export Finance Agency Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services, makes in order 21 amendments, and provides for a motion to recommit. It also provides that, upon passage of the rule, H. Res. 661 and H. Res. 693 will be hereby adopted. Additionally, it makes the motion to discharge H. Con. Res. 70 in order on November 21 if offered by Representative Gabbard, debatable for 20 minutes. Lastly, the rule extends the positive work of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress to the conclusion of the 116th Congress. Mr. Speaker, given that the United States is the third largest exporter of goods in the world, maintaining and supporting this industry is imperative for our economic well-being and for good-paying jobs across the country. In 2018, we shipped over $2.5 trillion worth of commercial aircraft, machinery, industrial supplies, consumer goods, and agricultural products overseas. The Export-Import Bank, or Ex-Im Bank, plays a large role in supporting that business. Through direct loans, medium- and long-term loan guarantees, working capital, and insurance, the Ex-Im Bank steps in where private financing is unavailable and has been supporting American exporters for nearly a century. Because of work like this, in the last 10 years, Ex-Im has created 1.7 million American jobs. Over the last several years, we have seen the Bank go through a lot of unnecessary political turmoil. After successfully reauthorizing the Bank in 2015, the Senate has failed to confirm board members. Under current law, without Senate action, the Bank was left almost inoperable. The effects were felt across the Nation, and in my own district, it was affected there. In the past 5 years, my district in northern California has been home to nine exporters, of which seven are small businesses and five are owned by women and minorities. After Senate negligence left the Bank unable to do its work, today there are only three exporters remaining in my district. In today's bill to reauthorize the Bank, we make substantial improvements that not only address the political problems displayed in the Senate, but also improve and diversify the Bank's activities. In short, the United States Export Finance Agency Act will help support even more jobs, with new emphasis on small business, women- and minority-owned businesses. As a former small business owner, I am encouraged by this effort. To stay on top, the United States must stay competitive. This bill gives us that chance to help workers, help businesses, and help our economy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and thank my friend from California for yielding me the time. I want to tell a different story, Mr. Speaker. You and I haven't gotten a chance to work together down here when I have really gotten to come down here and really sell these rules, because back when I was in the majority on the Rules Committee, we didn't always get it right; but, as a rank-and-file member of the committee, I always had a chance to improve the bill, to make it better, to try to hear some voices. My friend from Florida is not down here with us today. My friend from California knows, the worst thing about having Alcee Hastings on your committee is that he gets all fired up and all geared up, and you almost get upset because so often he is right, and he is pointing out your flaws and he is making you do it better. We need more of that from one another, Mr. Speaker, where we get ourselves wound up, not about Republicans and Democrats, but about how to do the process better. I know that your week and my friend from California's week has been just like my week. It started out with Veterans Day events back home in your district. And you didn't find a man or a woman who said, ``Let's do better for Republican veterans but not so much for Democratic veterans,'' or vice versa. You found men and women who were proud of their service. You found men and women who wanted to support those men and women who had served us. You found folks grateful for our opportunities to be in community with one another and do better tomorrow than we did yesterday. Then we showed up here on Tuesday after Veterans Day break and we started with our suspension calendar. For the life of me, I don't understand why this institution hides all the good things that it does and accentuates all the controversial things it does. If we took a poll outside the Capitol today, Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask you, and I want to make sure I get it right: How many folks walking past the Capitol today know that, in a bipartisan way, you and I and the gentleman from California came together on Tuesday and passed General Bergman's GI Bill Planning Act to ease the burden on new servicemembers as they try to sort out accessing their education benefits? This is an important issue that has been plaguing our veterans. We have been talking about it here in this institution. We got together on Monday, and we did it together. Not one headline, not one 6 p.m. news story. Republicans and Democrats standing together in this House on behalf of veterans who were not being served as well as we knew we could serve them, we fixed it together, but that is not what we are talking about. How many folks, Mr. Speaker, if we go outside today, are going to know that we passed Ms. Brownley's Deborah Sampson Act, which recognizes the different needs that women veterans and newborn children have and established a department within the VA to make sure those needs are met? Yes, the VA was formed as a male-centric institution. Of course, in 2019, there are going to be needs that were unmet. We have known that. We have talked about that. We have pushed that down the road. But this House this week came together, Republicans and Democrats, to solve that issue once and for all, but I challenge you to find somebody standing outside who knows that is what their U.S. House of Representatives has been working on this week. What about Mr. Cunningham's VA Tele-Hearing Modernization Act? You have the same concerns in your veterans community that I do, Mr. Speaker: folks trying to file their appeals, trying to get in touch with those hearing boards, but because their mobility is limited, because they are distant from those population centers, they can't get that done. Mr. Cunningham's bill improves the ability to do that with the telecommunications that are available to us in 2019. Of course, we should have gotten that done. Of course, we should have. We have been working on it; we have been perfecting it. This week, this House, Republicans and Democrats, came together and did that for veterans, too. Mr. Harder's Protecting Families of Fallen Servicemembers Act, to ensure that family members of servicemen and -women and Active-Duty reservists who were killed or seriously injured on Active Duty are allowed to terminate their financial dealings back home in a way that is easy. My father passed away last summer, Mr. Speaker. It is incredibly difficult when you lose a family member to deal with all of those end- of-life issues, all of those financial issues. The last thing our service families need to be dealing with is sorting through all of that paperwork. We have now come together in a collaborative partnership way to solve that issue. I challenge you to find a man or woman outside the Capitol who knows that. Now, why do I tell you that story, Mr. Speaker? I tell you that story because that was just Monday and Tuesday, a little bit of Wednesday, and we are not talking about that on the floor of this House. Instead, I am down here today to talk about the Ex-Im Bank [[Page H8840]] bill, which is an important bill, an important bill that we could have done in a bipartisan way but didn't. I don't know if you remember those headlines. I brought them down here with me, Mr. Speaker, if you don't recall them. This is when we produced the bipartisan Ex-Im Bank bill, the one that was going to committee, the one that Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry worked out together in a bipartisan way back in June: ``Export-Import Bank Deal in Peril Amid Democratic Backlash.'' {time} 1245 The bipartisan bill that had been worked out didn't meet the standards of some in the Democratic Caucus. The bill got pulled back. ``Democrats Defy Waters on Ex-Im Bank Restrictions''. Again, this is a bill to reform the Ex-Im Bank. It imposed some new restrictions. The Democratic Caucus pushed back. The bipartisan bill was pulled. What we have before us today, Mr. Speaker, is a bill that is completely partisan in its passage. The only thing that is bipartisan about the bill today is the folks that voted against it. Republicans and Democrats said: No, this is not the right bill. Only Democrats said: This is the right bill. All of these things we could be doing in partnership, things like Ex- Im Bank that started in partnership. It seems we go out of our way to focus on our divisions instead of our successes. So when we went to the Rules Committee in the midst of all of these great veterans bills passing the floor of the House, we advocated to make improvements to the Ex-Im Bank bill. Again, this was a bill that started out as a bipartisan bill, a collaborative bill, one that had been sorted out between Republicans and Democrats so that we could move forward, and it turned into a partisan bill. We went up to the Rules Committee to try to get some Republican amendments made in order to try to improve the bill in some way. I know it is popular, and the lore back home is if you are in a different party, you don't have anything productive to add to the debate. I hear that at some county meetings, and I am sure my friends on the other side of the aisle do, too. It is just nonsense. Having good ideas does not have a Republican or Democratic requirement to it. Folks on both sides of the aisle have something to offer. But when Republicans brought their ideas to the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of two Republican amendments, every other idea was rejected. Every other idea was rejected. Now, that is the way it went in committee, too, Mr. Speaker. If you weren't following the committee hearings, the amendments in committee the Republicans offered were rejected on a party-line vote. They had their chance in the Rules Committee to improve upon it. Those amendments: rejected one by one. In fact, Mr. Speaker, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, because my chairman on the Rules Committee works very hard, the last two rules I have been down here to talk about, Republicans got the same number or even a few more amendments than Democrats got. It was the first time it had happened that I had been down here carrying such a rule, and it did bring some partnership back to the institution. But for this bill, the Ex-Im Bank, how do we finance trade in America, not a partisan issue, we have got individual Democratic Members who have been offered more amendments personally than the entire Republican Party has collectively. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker, because this institution is divided roughly down the middle here. I have got individual Members of the Democratic Party who have been offered personally more opportunities to change and improve this bill than the entire Republican side of the aisle combined. Combined. It is as if we go out of our way to find division in what ought to be partnership issues. Eighty-one percent of the amendments that are offered are Democratic amendments; 17 Democratic amendments made in order, two Republican amendments, two bipartisan amendments. The funny thing about this institution, Mr. Speaker, and you see it better from your chair than any of us do from our chairs, is that if you are in the majority, you get to win. Two things are important to winning. Being in the majority means you have the votes. Now you have to bring a good idea to pair with those votes. You can carry the day. We have gotten into that habit, Mr. Speaker, of having all Republicans or all of Democrats carry the bills one direction or the other. Where are those opportunities, like we did on veteran bill after veteran bill after veteran bill on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, to come together and do things collaboratively? I will give you another example. I don't understand what the self- loathing is from time to time here, Mr. Speaker, that prevents us from celebrating what is the most democratic institution in the world today. This rule that we are talking about today hides deep within it an extension of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. The Select Committee on Modernization is a bipartisan committee, it is the only one we have right now, Mr. Speaker, equal number of Republicans and Democrats. Why? Because they are not working on partisan issues. They are trying to improve the institution. They are trying to improve the process. They are trying to make this institution work better for the American people. It is led by two great Members of this institution: Derek Kilmer out of Washington State, Tom Graves out of the great State of Georgia. Mr. Kilmer is a Democrat, Mr. Graves is a Republican. They have been leading this committee in partnership together, tackling thorny issue after thorny issue in a collaborative way. The House only authorized the committee for a year. This rule gives them a second year. It is a great idea, it is a great thing to do. Because this is a rule and because it contains all of these provisions that completely shut out Republican contributions on the Financial Services legislation that is before us today, it is going to pass on a party-line vote. All the Democrats are going to vote ``yes,'' many having not read it, as is the function of rules, all Republicans are going to vote ``no.'' We have a chance here to have taken that language out, to have done that together, to have talked about the successes we have had collaboratively on the Modernization Committee. We are missing that chance today. I am not enough of a failed student in mathematics, Mr. Speaker, to believe that I am going to prevail on the vote on the rule today. I have done the math again in my head. They still have more votes than we have. I am prepared to lose. What I am not prepared to do is give up on doing better. I challenge my friends on both sides of the aisle to find a partisan advantage in extending the Modernization Committee hidden inside the rule instead of having that debate on the floor of the House. You won't find it there. I challenge the body to find a partisan advantage to spending 10 minutes on Tuesday talking about serving veterans in a bipartisan way and spending 2 hours on Thursday and Friday talking about financial services in a way that could have been bipartisan, but instead has been converted to a strictly partisan issue, and to add insult to injury, has denied all but two Republican amendments and bipartisan voices to the debate. I know that habits are difficult things to break. Some of the bad habits that we are in in this institution started under Republican leadership, some of the bad habits that we are in in this institution started under Democratic leadership. If we want to have a day of debate on who is to blame, I have a pretty good idea how those lines would fall out. I am not interested in that day of debate. I am interested in a day of debate not talking about who is to blame, but talking about how we are working together to fix it. Because I don't know if your constituency is anything like mine, but my constituency is starting to think that we have given up working together to fix it. When my constituency turns on Fox News or MSNBC, that is not what the talking head of the day is talking about. The thing that keeps me up at night, Mr. Speaker, isn't all the things we are voting against, it is all the things we [[Page H8841]] miss an opportunity to vote for, those things that, because we are here in community together today, we have an opportunity to fix. I have got one for you, if you are interested and if you haven't had a chance to take a look at it. It is the Adoptee Citizenship Act, Mr. Speaker. It is just crazy to me. The best part of this job, as my friend from California knows, is that really smart people spend time with us to make us smarter. The Adoptee Citizenship Act, it is H.R. 2731, is a bill that my Democratic colleague, Adam Smith, and I have offered together. When American families adopted children from overseas in the 1970s and 1980s, those children didn't automatically get citizenship. You would think an American family adopts a child, that child has American parents, they are going to become an American citizen. Not so, Mr. Speaker. It is an incredibly long process. Now, in the 1970s and 1980s, we didn't care that much about that, but fast forward to September 11, 2001, we started talking a lot about citizenship status, only to find out that thousands upon thousands of Americans didn't have their citizenship because their parents didn't know they had to file all of this additional paperwork. Now, who among us is opposed to letting American families that have been American families for 40 years, citizens who were adopted into American families, get that citizenship document and live the normal life that we all thought they were supposed to be living here? H.R. 2731. The list of things that we do collaboratively, cooperatively that make differences for the American people is as long as any statement anyone is going to read on the floor of the House today, and it is not going to be what we celebrate this week. The last vote today is at 2 o'clock. We are going to do amendment debate for the rest of the day. If we don't start spending more time on this floor celebrating those things that we are doing together, Mr. Speaker, we are going to lose the confidence of our constituency back home. I dare say, for many families, they have lost confidence in us already. I don't shy away from the serious fights we are going to have down here at all. This is supposed to be a place where serious people come together and disagree about some ideas and sort it all out. What I take issue with is when we stop trying to sort it all out and when we send the message back home that instead of succeeding on behalf of our bosses, we are actually just arguing amongst ourselves. It is not true. It is not true. We are missing another opportunity today, as our ranking member said in the Rules Committee debate last night, to do better. I know that we have men and women on this floor, in this institution who want to do better. Can we fix it this afternoon? Maybe not. Will we fix it if we stop focusing on it? Definitely not. My commitment to my colleagues, for better or for worse, is that I will spend my next 14 months focusing on it as long as my friend from California continues to yield me 30 minutes in the Rules Committee debate, for which I am grateful. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee). Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) for his leadership, and my good friend from Georgia, I thank him for his explanation of the process of democracy in this place. But I am excited to announce that this is a bipartisan effort, because the bipartisan aspect of it are the results of how this legislation will impact all of America irrespective, not respecting, their region, their faith, or their party. Let me be very clear to say what we are actually talking about today and the real-life stories that make a difference. It is called the Export-Import Bank and it is legislated as the United States Export Finance Agency, and its short name, as I said, Export-Import. What does that mean? I rise to support it, because it means something to individual businesses. It means something to rural American farmers. It means something to small manufacturers. We have been documenting that manufacturing is going down, manufacturing based upon how you sell your products. This is a 10-year plan with $175 billion to help those businesses, those small farms, those entrepreneurs in your community. That is jobs. What it means is the company that makes light bulbs can now export those to developing nations on the continent of Africa or they can go deep into Southeast Asia or Asia and sell products from the United States to a foreign country. For those of us who have seen the lopsidedness, there are governments that actually fund businesses outside the United States. We don't do that, mostly, unless it is through a grant or through a funding for a project that we need, and so you are on your own. But this is going to provide small businesses with an extra hand up. It is going to help those who are, in particular, minority and women- owned businesses, along with others. It is going to create a process so that it does not lapse. We had a period where there was no quorum. We couldn't help small businesses. I remember sitting in a room with this company in a foreign country, a U.S. company that was there, and they said, ``If it had not been for the Export-Import Bank, we would have lost 300 employees in the United States.'' {time} 1300 This is bipartisan. This is where we help people, no matter who they are. I am a strong supporter of this bill because it takes into consideration working men and women, and it takes into consideration the environment. All of our union friends, who provide a pathway of success for working Americans, support this bill because it helps bring back manufacturing. We support it because it gives alternative options for energy a boost where jobs can be created with renewable energy. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman. Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just simply say that you have to live this to understand it, and I have spoken to those businesses that have benefited from Export-Import. It sounds like a name that you can't get your hands around, but just understand it simply. You want to do business overseas. You want to get your products overseas. It is a big hurdle. You need additional finance. This is the place to come. And they have been successful in paying for themselves. That $175 billion is over 10 years, but it pays for itself with the number of businesses that Americans can take advantage of and create new businesses for the sole purpose of selling that product overseas, selling that small farmer produce, what is on that small farm, allowing them to send it to markets that are desperate for the wonderful bounty of food products that we are able to raise in this wonderful country. In particular, I would like to add, it is a good place for veterans who want to start their business, to add to their business, because many of them, obviously, understand the international realm. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I support this bill, the Ex-Im Bank, and I hope that my colleagues will support it. Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that I agree with every good thing my friend from Texas said that the Ex-Im Bank is able to do, which is why, when this bill began, it was a bipartisan bill by the chairwoman of the committee and the ranking Republican on the committee. It devolved from that so that, as it passed out of committee, it is not a bipartisan bill. The only thing bipartisan about this bill is the opposition to it. Republicans and Democrats opposed it in committee. Only Democrats support it because of the partisan turn that it took. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the gentleman from the Financial Services Committee who tried to make the bill better. He offered two amendments in the Rules Committee that would have brought bipartisan support to this bill. [[Page H8842]] Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to ask my colleagues to reject the rule that would enable a vote later this week on reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. Many of you will say: ``Why, Frank, of all people, would you come to the floor to ask for the rejection of the rule and the underlying bill?'' The reason they would ask that is because no one has worked harder than I have, in my career here, to make sure that this economic tool is available to American businesses. No one has struggled harder than I have to make sure that those individuals who make their living in the industries that use the Bank are able to continue to do that. No one has worked harder. The last time this bill was reauthorized, I sat in the majority. My leadership at that time was opposed to the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. My colleague from Tennessee and I used a procedure from the beginning of the previous century to discharge a clean version of the bill, to bring it to the floor, to pass it, and, ultimately, for it to be passed by the Senate and signed by the President. So there is no one who appreciates more than I do the importance of this bill. So, why am I here? I had a couple of amendments offered in the Rules Committee. I know some of my colleagues have said: ``Frank, why didn't you offer those amendments in the markup of the bill?'' Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been around here long enough, and I have been in this great life that we live long enough, to understand there are some fundamental rules. My ranking member and my chairman on that committee engaged in one of the most splendid, intense, philosophical battles over reauthorizing this bill that you will ever see. They fought hard over every principle. They had proponents on both sides of the committee trying to drive the bill further to the left and, simultaneously, further to the right. That is a difficult set of issues to balance out. You say: ``Well, Frank, why weren't you engaged?'' There is an old country logic that goes something like this: When your neighbor's bull jumps into your pasture, or when two of your bulls get in the same pasture together and engage in a fight and get mad and get hot and try to fight to the death, you don't get between them because they will kill you. They will kill you. My perspective was, let the committee do its will, but on the floor of this United States House, let's offer alternatives. You say: ``What were your amendments that were rejected that would have made a difference?'' Amendment No. 17 simply reflected what the White House had said: Send us a clean 10-year reauthorization. Clean, 10 years. Straightforward, understandable, logical. But being the practical fellow I am, I offered amendment No. 18. What did No. 18 say? Basically, it was the most popular bill in the United States Senate at this time to reauthorize the institution: a 10-year reauthorization, raise the capitalization level to $175 billion, and address the quorum requirement. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman because we are hearing from a member of the committee who supports the Bank but who opposes this rule. Mr. LUCAS. Either amendment, I believe, would have passed the floor. One amendment would have assured us a signature immediately. The second amendment would have assured us, I believe, passage in the Senate. But the forces fought themselves to exhaustion. I came, as I had before, to appeal to this body as a whole. I was denied that opportunity. So, yes, I am voting against the rule. I will vote against the bill because, you see, somebody that matters greatly on the other side of this campus said this bill will never be heard over there, will never be heard. I am here to make things happen, working with you. I am here working on behalf of our constituents, working with you. That is what I tried. Reject the rule. Force this back to the Rules Committee. Give me a second chance. Give me a second chance. But you have to vote ``no'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the opportunity to express my concerns. Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first want to recognize my colleague from Oklahoma and his passion, his history on this bill, and his argument. I also want to thank him for the bull analogy, although I am not sure how the chair of the committee might take that. Having said that, I do want to say to my friend from Georgia a little bit about his comments. I find myself in agreement whenever I come down here on much of what Mr. Woodall says in terms of the aspiration of working more together and still keeping our unique perspectives on things. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that he would admit that the chair of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, and the ranking member--certainly, two of the Members I respect the most, in addition to my colleague. We have had these debates in the committee, and I think that there is an earnest effort of both parties to do better. As you said, we can do better. So I would like to thank my colleague for mentioning and referring to the instances when we did agree. I would like to remind us all that Mr. McGovern has been very insistent on the 72-hour rule, which has been helpful. We have done a higher percentage of structured rules to date, and fewer closed rules to date, under his leadership than we did under the previous Congress. Just 2 weeks ago, not that this is a baseball game, there were three times as many Republican amendments in the natural resources bill as there were Democratic. Having said that, I think we can do better. I do want to note to my colleague that I am a cosponsor of the Adoptee Citizen Act, a great piece of legislation with great authors. As we continue to try to do more together and better together, I think you know I yearn to serve in a body like that, where we have legitimate differences of opinion from our perspective, from what our constituents expect, and there is honest respect for both sides, that we create a work product that is probably more reflective of both. I have said that before. We have had this discussion. In this instance, I think we are trying to do better all the time. For me, and I know for the chair and our staff, we want to continue to work with the gentleman to do better. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do enjoy working with my friend from California. When I am critical of our work product, I am critical of all 13 of us on the Rules Committee. We are tasked with getting the job done, and when we don't get it done, it falls on all of us. I was critical earlier today of stuffing so many things into this rule because I like to do things one at a time. But if we are going to stuff all the things into this rule, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleagues that if we defeat the previous question, I will add one more into this rule. It will be a collaborative effort, not a Republican effort, a collaborative effort. If we defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, I will add an amendment that will bring to the floor H.R. 2207. That is the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2019, which most of my colleagues know is the bill to prevent the medical device tax, eliminate that tax. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and any extraneous materials 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 Georgia? There was no objection. Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I told you this was a bipartisan piece of legislation. It has 253 bipartisan cosponsors. It is authored by a Democrat from Wisconsin, a great Member, Mr. Kind, and it makes a real difference to so many Americans. I can't explain it as well as my friend from Indiana can. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), a Member who has worked [[Page H8843]] tirelessly to correct this legislative flaw on behalf of the American people. Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to include the consideration of the repeal of the medical device tax. The medical device tax hurts jobs and innovation, preventing the development of cutting-edge, lifesaving technologies. That also increases the cost of patient care for all of our constituents, Republican and Democrat. There is not a corner on the market for patient success and lifelong cures more than the medical device tax elimination. Hoosiers in my State are proud to be leaders in medical innovation, with more than 300 medical device manufacturers in my State alone supporting nearly 55,000 good-paying jobs. However, after this tax took effect, the industry lost nearly 30,000 of those jobs nationwide from 2012 to 2015, according to the Commerce Department data. Congress has temporarily suspended this job-killing tax since 2016, and this expires in January. Here we are at a crux that we have never faced before. We are 3 months away. Congress needs to act today, now, not for me, for all of us on this floor. These folks who live and die by medical devices do not declare themselves as being Republicans, Democrats, or independents. They are Americans in need of our help, and they need it now. Medical devices have literally changed the way we think about healthcare. In all of our districts, patients undergo less invasive procedures, which leads to shorter hospital stays. New technologies diagnose illnesses earlier, lowering the impact of care on a person's daily life. Yet, all these notable gains will be wiped out if the medical device tax elimination repeal is not carried through here today. It will divert millions of dollars that could have been spent on critical investments in research and development of cures and therapies. {time} 1315 There is huge bipartisan support for this bill. Unlike very few other bills in this place, it is bipartisan because we have all recognized at one time or another that our constituents need our help and we are doing something to help them. By defeating the previous question, we can do that. We can unleash the potential of the medical device technology that could be developing better treatments, managing chronic care, and improving the quality of life for people in all of our districts. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question. Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I can't say it any better than my friend from Oklahoma said it. He supports the goal of the underlying bill. He is going to oppose this rule because his ideas were not even heard, not that his ideas weren't put into the language, but that he was not even allowed a chance to debate his ideas. I will say it again: Only two Republican ideas were made in order for consideration in this rule, and more amendments were given to individual members of the Democratic Party than the entire Republican Party combined. That is not the way we ought to be doing things. We ought to have a full airing of issues and concerns. You heard it from the gentleman from Oklahoma, vote ``no'' on the rule. But also vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, you heard from my friend from Indiana. We have an opportunity in a bipartisan way to solve a nationwide problem by eliminating the medical device tax. Everybody from the far left to the far right knows it; from the east, to the west, to the north, to the south. We can do this together. If we have to do this closed rule that eliminates the diversity of ideas in this institution, then let's at least do it with the medical device tax language included. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Add that language. If we can't defeat the previous question, I am going to have to ask my colleagues to defeat the rule and see if we can't come back with a process that opens up this bill to more voices; not just from across the parties, but from across the country. We can do better than this. My colleagues know it, as do I. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. It is always a pleasure to be down here or on the Rules Committee with my friend from Georgia. I appreciate what we agree with, and I appreciate the passion that the gentleman brings when he disagrees with us. I do want to say, as we fight for these things, there was a famous Frenchman who President Reagan used to quote, the quote was: ``Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.'' So somewhere in there, in this process I think we try to find the best product we can. I believe what we have in front of us is that product. And I do also think and commit to this that we can always do better. Mr. Speaker, a vote for this rule and this bill is a vote to promote American-made jobs, goods, and the American economy. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question. The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 695 At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 2207) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 2207. Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and 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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15- minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5- minute votes on: Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, nays 198, not voting 6, as follows: [Roll No. 615] YEAS--226 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) Crist Crow Cuellar 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 Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Golden Gomez Gonzalez (TX) Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Haaland Harder (CA) Hastings Hayes Heck Higgins (NY) 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 Luria Lynch Malinowski Maloney, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Matsui McAdams McBath McCollum McEachin McGovern McNerney Meeks [[Page H8844]] Meng Moore Morelle Moulton Mucarsel-Powell Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Norcross O'Halleran Ocasio-Cortez Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Perlmutter Peters Peterson Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Price (NC) Quigley Raskin Rice (NY) Richmond Rose (NY) Rouda Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Schrader Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David 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--198 Abraham Aderholt Allen Amash Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bergman Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) 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) Comer Conaway Cook Craig Crawford Crenshaw Curtis Davidson (OH) Davis, Rodney DesJarlais Diaz-Balart 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 Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) King (IA) King (NY) Kinzinger Kustoff (TN) LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta Lesko Long Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Marchant Marshall Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClintock McHenry McKinley Meadows Meuser Miller Mitchell Moolenaar Mooney (WV) Mullin Murphy (NC) Newhouse Norman Nunes Olson Palazzo Palmer Pence Perry Phillips Posey Ratcliffe Reed Reschenthaler Rice (SC) Riggleman Roby Rodgers (WA) 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) Smucker Spano Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart Stivers Taylor Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tipton Turner Upton Wagner Walberg Walden Walker Walorski Waltz Watkins Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Williams Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Woodall Wright Young Zeldin NOT VOTING--6 Gabbard Omar Schiff Serrano Timmons Yoho {time} 1348 Messrs. KEVIN HERN of Oklahoma, WITTMAN, SPANO, BILIRAKIS, and Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Mr. TED LIEU of California, Ms. MENG, Mr. CLEAVER, and Ms. PORTER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' So the previous question was ordered. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. Stated for: Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 615. Stated against: Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I voted electronically but it did not register. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 615. 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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, nays 198, not voting 4, as follows: [Roll No. 616] YEAS--228 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 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 Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Golden Gomez Gonzalez (TX) Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Haaland Harder (CA) Hastings Hayes Heck Higgins (NY) 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 Luria Lynch Malinowski Maloney, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Matsui McAdams McBath McCollum McEachin McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Moore Morelle Moulton Mucarsel-Powell Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Norcross O'Halleran Ocasio-Cortez Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Perlmutter Peters Peterson Phillips Pingree Pocan 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 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--198 Abraham Aderholt Allen Amash Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bergman Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) 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) Comer Conaway Cook Crawford Crenshaw Curtis Davidson (OH) Davis, Rodney DesJarlais Diaz-Balart 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 Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) King (IA) King (NY) Kinzinger Kustoff (TN) LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta Lesko Long Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Marchant Marshall Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClintock McHenry McKinley Meadows Meuser Miller Mitchell Moolenaar Mooney (WV) Mullin Murphy (NC) Newhouse Norman Nunes Olson Palazzo Palmer Pence Perry Porter Posey Ratcliffe Reed Reschenthaler Rice (SC) Riggleman Roby Rodgers (WA) 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) Smucker Spano Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart Stivers Taylor Thompson (PA) Thornberry 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 [[Page H8845]] NOT VOTING--4 Gabbard Omar Serrano Timmons {time} 1404 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. ____________________
All in House sectionPrev40 of 92Next