[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 180 (Friday, December 11, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H9275-H9286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 644, TRADE
FACILITATION AND TRADE ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 2250, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 560 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 560
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 644) to reauthorize trade facilitation and trade
enforcement functions and activities, and for other purposes.
All points of order against the conference report and against
its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2)
one motion to recommit if applicable.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2250)
making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other
purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider
in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a
single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the
Senate amendments. The Senate amendments and the motion shall
be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand
for division of the question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The gentleman from Oklahoma is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my
friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported
a rule for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
644,
[[Page H9276]]
the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, and the
Senate amendments to H.R. 2250, a continuing resolution which runs
through December 16, 2015.
The resolution provides a standard conference report rule for
consideration of H.R. 644, with 1 hour of debate divided pursuant to
clause 8(d) of rule XXII.
In addition, the rule makes in order a motion from the chair of the
Committee on Appropriations to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R.
2250, with 60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations on the
motion. In addition, the rule provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, first, this resolution allows for consideration of the
conference report on the Customs bill. I think it is important to put
the work of this House in perspective. As Speaker Ryan noted yesterday,
in the entirety of the last Congress, only three conference reports
became law. However, with the passage of this conference report, this
Congress will have passed three conference reports in 10 days. I am
pleased that Speaker Ryan's commitment to regular order is already
bearing fruit.
This conference report is a good product. One provision especially
important to me is the establishment of new tools for Customs and
Border Protection, the CBP, to effectively act against the evasion of
antidumping and countervailing duties. I was first introduced to this
issue in 2009, when the Chinese dumped literally tens of thousands of
tires on the U.S. market, leading to devastating job losses at tire
factories across America. I helped to lead the charge at that time to
ensure that the Department of Commerce would impose antidumping and
countervailing duties. The ENFORCE Act language included in the
conference report provides a mechanism and incentive for the CBP to
properly investigate and apply appropriate duties to ensure that U.S.
companies can compete on a level playing field.
In addition, I am encouraged that the conference report includes
language which permanently bans States and localities from imposing a
tax on Internet access. Initially enacted in 1998, this prohibition has
enabled greater access to Internet services and information. It is
estimated that if Congress fails to continue the ban on taxes on
Internet access, consumers could end up paying more than $16.4 billion
annually. This moratorium has been law since 1998 on a temporary basis,
and I am pleased this conference report reflects our intention to make
it permanent.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Customs measure, this legislation
contains a 5-day continuing resolution to allow the Appropriations
Committee to continue its work towards an omnibus appropriations
measure. It is simple, straightforward, and extends funding for all
government agencies through December 16, 2015, at current funding
levels.
I urge all Members to support this short-term CR, which will allow
the Appropriations Committee the time to conclude negotiations on a
full-year funding measure with its Senate counterparts and the White
House. I am encouraged by the hard work of Chairman Rogers and Ranking
Member Lowey, whose leadership on this cannot be overstated.
One of the preeminent responsibilities we are tasked with, as Members
of Congress, is to ensure that government continues to function. While
a CR is not the ideal vehicle, the alternative of a government shutdown
is not what we have been sent to Washington to accomplish. Mr. Speaker,
I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition--I might add, reluctant
opposition--to the rule on two important bills that really shouldn't be
controversial: the Senate amendments to H.R. 2250--that is a short-term
continuing resolution. It shouldn't be necessary. This body should have
acted, but given that the body has not passed through regular order an
appropriations process to keep government open, that bill is
necessary--and the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of
2015.
H.R. 644, which is often called the Customs bill, is a bill that
needs to pass in some form. I want to see it pass. I have voted for it
to go to conference. It has a lot of provisions that are extremely
important to many Members, to our economy, and to even Americans
traveling casually overseas. It increases, finally, the amount of items
they can buy as gifts for their friends and then bring back without
having to pay duties. But looking at the version that we are
considering today under this rule, which does not allow amendments, I
think the body would be better taking individual votes on some of the
provisions.
There is a lot of good in this bill, but there is also a blatant
attack on climate science, on environmental protection, and, really,
items that serve no purpose in a bill written to facilitate trade. They
even put a separate item preventing Internet sales tax, which I support
the bill separately, and somehow this wound up in the Customs bill, a
totally unrelated measure from a different committee that wound up in
this bill at the last minute, this Christmas-tree bill. It wasn't in
the House or the Senate version before. I think we do need to give
Members a chance to be on the record to approve or not approve these
items individually, and I think that would be the open process that
this Speaker has committed to.
The second item under this rule, the Senate amendments to H.R. 2250,
our short-term continuing resolution, is straightforward and is
necessary as we near the shutdown of government, which would otherwise
occur December 11. Today would be the last day that we would fund
government, so, of course, we have to act. You don't hear objection
about that. The only objection I hear is: Why does this Congress always
wait until the eleventh hour to pass these kinds of bills? It just
doesn't make any sense. You don't wait until the day before government
shuts down to say: Okay. We will give ourselves a 5-day reprieve.
Are we even going to be able to complete the omnibus or continuing
resolution in those 5 days? I don't know. Are we going to be back here
next Wednesday doing another 3-day or 5-day CR?
There is no particular reason that we are doing this, nothing new. No
new information about how to better construct funding bills comes to us
next week or the week after than we had last week or 2 weeks ago. I
don't understand why we didn't do these bills last month. We passed the
budget bills. We agreed on the overall dollar figures about a month
ago. That is one of the hardest things about figuring out the
appropriations bills and spending is what levels are you going to
spend. We agreed on that. The House, the Senate, and the President
agreed. So that is not even being discussed. Why didn't we do it within
a week of that and just be done with it? It makes no sense.
So this bill would make December 16 the new deadline to finish
Congress' appropriations work and keep government open, and I do think
that Members and the public are anxious for us to complete our work. It
is also critical that we get a good product.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the majority, the Republicans, have previously
shown this country their willingness to go into a shutdown, so I hope
that we take this new 5-day period to avoid a shutdown permanently
rather than just to do another 3 or 5 days again and again and again.
Why aren't we sending a bill on appropriations to the President
today? From my point of view, it seems like it is nothing more than
partisan politics that is keeping it from getting done. I think the
votes are here--they have been here, were here a month ago, and were
here a week ago--for a commonsense bill that meets the budget that we
have already agreed on, that doesn't have completely unrelated
Christmas-tree policy riders that were put together in smoke-filled
rooms rather than the open process that the new Speaker has committed
to. And it is a real opportunity for this body to live up to that
promise and put together an appropriations bill that passes
overwhelmingly, which I think can absolutely be done.
Nearly every single member of the Democratic Caucus has said no
divisive
[[Page H9277]]
or controversial riders. The appropriations bills are not a place for
them. You don't bring government to the brink of a shutdown over policy
disagreements. You don't say: ``Look, unless we don't fund Planned
Parenthood, we are shutting down government. Look, unless you don't ban
the EPA from keeping our air clean, we are going to shut down
government.'' You can have those debates and you can have those
discussions, but it is not appropriate to do that with a threat of
shutting down government.
Didn't the Republicans recently sign some sort of pledge to have no
extraneous or legislation or must-pass bills? Well, what about taking
on the President's attempt to protect clean air standards? If
Republicans want it, then debate it and pass it. If you want to defund
Planned Parenthood, then debate it and pass it, but not in a last-
minute, closed package with a threat of closing government.
Compromise is what we did on the highway bill to pass a long-term
authorization. It worked great. It didn't have what every single Member
wanted, and we had to make tough compromises, but we can live with it.
It passed overwhelmingly. Compromise is what we took yesterday when I
got to go to the White House to see the Every Student Succeeds Act
signed, the new Federal education law that replaces No Child Left
Behind. It passed overwhelmingly in its final form in both the House
and the Senate. Now, a compromise is not seeing how many partisan
stocking stuffers you can jam into a must-pass bill before we head home
for the holidays.
Moving to the Customs enforcement bill, H.R. 644, it is, for the most
part, a very positive bill. The Customs bill is about giving the
administration the tools they need to make sure we are fighting a fair
fight when it comes to trade and to updating and eliminating unintended
consequences of other trade laws. I heard Ranking Member Levin testify
in the Rules Committee yesterday that the key to enforcement on trade
issues was the willingness of the administration to act, and the final
step of enforcing our existing and future trade agreements will always
fall to the executive branch. But they can't fight those fights without
the right tools in the toolbox. That is what the Customs bill does, and
this bipartisan bill has a lot of very high-quality elements that we
will likely send to the administration before the holidays.
It has the full ENFORCE Act, which would require immediate action to
investigate and address trade cheats and take measures to stop those
who continually attempt to circumvent the penalties already imposed on
them. It establishes and funds the Interagency Trade Enforcement
Center, which helps agencies find trade cheats and those who engage in
illegal dumping that risk putting Americans out of work. It establishes
the Trade Enforcement Fund, which would provide critical and dedicated
resources to enforce our trade agreements, and it would help with
capacity building, an important issue which would help our current and
future trading partners implement labor and environmental standards
that we push them towards in a real way.
The bill also contains important language on ending the importation
of goods made from child or forced labor, which is yet another step we
are taking towards ending this abominable practice on a global scale.
It also includes bipartisan language which gives the executive branch
new tools in evaluating and consulting with partner countries who may
be manipulating their currency.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to be serious with enforcing our trade
agreements, then the enforcement provisions in this bill are a major
step forward. We may still have to push this Executive when we feel
they aren't using these tools, but having these tools available is a
critical step.
The Customs bill also gives a leg up to American small business. The
bill makes commerce at the border more efficient. It modernizes the
operation of Customs and Border Patrol; and something that I fought for
for many years, it raises the de minimis threshold from $200 to $800,
which, again, is important to all Americans who travel overseas. Being
able to have smaller items cross our border duty-free is a major win
for small businesses and consumers, especially in the e-commerce space
on the commercial side, but also for casual tourists who travel
overseas.
What that means is, when you are reentering this country, if you ever
have to fill out one of those forms if you are coming back from Mexico
or Canada or Europe, the de minimis threshold was $200, and technically
you are responsible for a duty above that. This finally raises it. It
hasn't been adjusted for inflation for decades. This raises it to $800,
so you can truly bring back gifts for your friends and family. This is
important for individuals, and it is important for businesses.
The bill makes important technical corrections that are important to
companies in my district, like adjusting tariff lines for outdoor wear
and footwear.
{time} 0930
I am also very excited to say, as the cochair of the Nepal Caucus,
that the bill includes the Nepal Trade Preferences Act, a very
important provision that is a tangible benefit for Nepal's recovering
economic market. That is simply the right thing to do. As many here
know, Nepal suffered a devastating earthquake on April 25, 2015. Over
9,000 people were killed; 23,000 were injured. The earthquake triggered
a series of avalanches on Mt. Everest where 19 people, including one of
my constituents, were killed in what was the deadliest day in Mt.
Everest history.
The country has begun the urgent process of rebuilding. Despite the
trying circumstances, Nepal has remained resilient. On December 20, I
am proud to say, the democratically elected constituent assembly
announced the passage of a new democratic constitution, a remarkable
chapter for a country that, until recently, had been mired in civil war
and strife.
I am honored to join Representative Crenshaw, my cochair on the U.S.
Nepal Caucus, in introducing the Nepal Trade Preferences Act, which
gives preferential treatment to textile, leather, and apparel products
made in Nepal. And the bill facilitates capacity building to help
expand the Nepali export market.
I am very grateful for the hard work of my colleague from Florida
(Mr. Crenshaw), and the simultaneous effort that has been taking place
in the Senate under the leadership of Senator Feinstein.
Nepal is a very important and strategic ally between global powers,
India and China. Cooperation with America to help build capacity and
build the Nepali economy and stability is a critical foreign policy
priority, in addition to being an economic benefit to the American
people.
I believe trade can be a mechanism for poverty reduction worldwide. I
am heartened to see that this act, which attempts to do that, is
included in the Customs bill.
With all these great things, why would anybody oppose this bill?
Unfortunately, like anything, it is not that easy. I joined my
Democratic colleagues in voting against the Customs bill when it was on
the House floor last summer. Despite knowing that it needed to get
done, I was simply unable to vote for a bill that contained extraneous,
unnecessary attacks on climate science, on environmental protections,
and on immigrants.
These are some of the things that needed to be taken out in the
conference committee. They should have been taken out in the conference
committee. If they were, I would be proudly 100 percent supporting this
bill. If I could, in an open process, I would be amending the bill
today to take them out, so that this bill could enjoy broad Democratic
support.
The only positive thing I can say is that, emerging from conference,
this bill is less bad than it was. Included in the underlying report is
a renegotiated provision on greenhouse gas emissions and the role in
international trade agreements that certainly is not as bad as the
version that originally passed the House and, many argue, would not
have any significant legally constraining role on agreements negotiated
by the chief executive.
The House negotiated an objective that would have prohibited the USTR
from pursuing trade agreements that obligate United States law or
regulation towards global warming and climate change was stripped. It
was replaced with an equally nontopical, but
[[Page H9278]]
somewhat convoluted, provision that is a little difficult to
understand.
We use new language to bar trade agreements from including
obligations to alter U.S. law or regulations surrounding greenhouse gas
emissions.
To clarify, international trade policy will not be the stage on which
the United States establishes and implements strong and thoughtful
climate change policy. That is what Congress is for, that is what our
States are for, that is what our local governments are for. That must
be done. I think we all agree that won't be done through trade
agreements.
In that sense, the language was only added to speak to a deeply held
fear by my Republican Party colleagues to even acknowledge that climate
change exists. To my colleagues on the other side, I would say, this is
simply not the place for that kind of ideological statement.
Further, the language contradicts itself by explicitly allowing the
USTR to seek provisions, including those related to global warming and
climate change, if doing so would fulfill another negotiating
objective.
So, we bar negotiators from discussing environmental policy
objectives and then flip, allowing them to do so if it meets another
objective.
Not only is this language unnecessary, it is a messy, convoluted,
contradictory-type of compromise that nobody really even knows what it
would mean, and is really rife for lawyers on both sides to be debating
it for years or decades.
The entire world is in Paris right now talking about specifics on
fighting climate change. And here we are today, with the only political
party in the developed world that still questions the existence of
climate change in their very platform, attaching this ridiculous
provision to an unrelated Customs bill, embarrassing our own
negotiators while they are in Paris.
We get it: you don't agree with the rest of the world on this, you
don't agree with scientists on this, you don't agree with the majority
of Americans on that. We get that. Next year, feel free to pass a
resolution that says, we don't believe in climate change, if that is
what you want to do. But put it on your letterhead; don't put it into
an unrelated Customs bill that is actually important for our economy
and for the American people. Stop trying to muddle good bipartisan
bills with this sort of divisive, unscientific language that, frankly,
not only threatens the environment, but also embarrasses our country.
These kinds of provisions have no place in bills like the Customs bill
and should have been taken out in the process.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to begin by agreeing with my friend on the other side
on a number of areas. I, too, have concerns about the process by which
we operate, and would have preferred a number of these items to come,
as my friend suggests, separately. But the reality is, of course, we
are late in the year and late in the session, we have got significant
work to do, and this, I think, is the best way to proceed.
It is worth noting that the conference report itself is a compromise.
The Democrats and Republicans were involved in putting that together,
and, indeed, this entire bill has considerable Democratic support, as
we work toward a larger compromise on the omnibus itself.
It is also worth noting why we ended up in this situation. Frankly,
the Appropriations Committee in this House accomplished its work--all
of its work--for the first time in a long time early this year. All 12
legislative bills passed through the Appropriations Committee, six of
them across this floor. To suggest that anything has been done in the
dark or in the back room, frankly, ignores that fact.
What happened was the United States Senate chose not to allow any
appropriations bills to come to the floor. They didn't do that as a
body. My friends on the other side of the aisle in the Senate--the
Democrats--chose not to allow any bills to come to the floor. To be
fair to them, they also completed every appropriations bill through the
full committee. That is the first time that has happened in many, many
years in the United States Senate.
But, our friends, until we got this larger agreement, the budget
agreement, which I was happy to vote for, and I know my friend on the
other side also voted for, until we reached that point, the
appropriations process in the other body didn't happen. At some point,
that affects what is going on over here. If they are not moving bills,
we stop moving bills because it is sort of a waste of time to do that.
If you have got complaints, you should talk to your colleagues in the
other body on your side of the aisle, and tell them hopefully next year
they won't try to keep bills from moving to the floor in a normal way.
Again, I am proud that this body moved all 12 bills through the
Appropriations Committee.
I also want to make a couple of other points in terms of where we are
now in trying to reach an omnibus. This puts me a little bit, again, at
odds with my friend. I don't think that is a closed process. Frankly,
it is a pretty normal process. There are representatives involved in
these negotiations, both Democratic and Republican, and from the
administration. They are working very hard, in good faith, to try and
do something that is extremely difficult. Writing a $1.1 trillion
omnibus bill takes a lot of time, and there are multiple items to be
negotiated. I think both sides are negotiating in good faith in this
legislative body, and I think the administration is participating in
good faith.
My friend and I will also disagree that riders on appropriations
bills, as they are called, is somehow unusual. They certainly, when
they were in the majority, had lots of riders on appropriations bills.
It is just not an unusual thing. There is, obviously, give-and-take on
these things. But Congress, exercising the power of the purse, is a
perfectly appropriate constitutional tool to use.
In this case, where we end up will, indeed, be a compromise. The
omnibus bill cannot pass either Chamber, and certainly has to be signed
by the President of the United States. A Republican Congress, our
friends with the appropriate tools and votes that they have, the
President of the United States, who has the ultimate veto pen, all of
these parties will have to be placated. Again, that negotiation is long
and complex. We are making good progress. All parties are represented
there.
Eventually, a bill will be presented to this body, hopefully, in the
next few days. I share my friend's concern. I would prefer not to be
here. But if we have to be here next week and have two or three more
days to have the process work out, so be it.
The lessons I think we ought to draw from this, and that we have a
chance to implement next year, are let's do a normal process. We
already have an agreement now for next year's spending numbers. That is
a step in the right direction, and, actually, says a lot of good things
about all parties and all concerned that they were able to come to this
larger agreement earlier this year.
We have no excuse, in my view, not to move all 12 bills across the
floor in regular order under an open rule so every Member can come down
here and participate. I know that that is certainly the goal of
Chairman Rogers, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I know
that is the goal of his ranking member, the distinguished gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
I think the hard work this year has set us up both for a fruitful
compromise here in the waning days of the calendar year in the
legislative session, and has actually laid the foundation for something
we have not seen around here in a long time: regular order, next year.
In the course of that regular order, all of us will be forced to
compromise.
We still live in a divided government: a Republican Congress and a
Democratic President. We still operate in a system of checks and
balances that our Constitutional forebearers set up over 230 years ago.
That system has served us pretty well over the course of our history. I
think it will continue to. And it will continue to demand compromise.
We have seen a little bit more of that lately. I know my friend has his
concerns, some of which, again, I share.
I am pretty proud of a Congress that has: number one, produced the
first unitary budget since 2001, where the Senate and the House agree
that, for
[[Page H9279]]
the first time since 2006, has moved all appropriations bills through
the Appropriations Committee of both Chambers; that, actually, in
recent days and weeks, passed landmark legislation, as my friend
referred to, the Reauthorization of Higher Education Act, where I know
he played a role in that; the highway bill that was recently passed;
this conference report, which I know my friend has some concerns with,
but, in fairness, speaks well of him, and pointed out a lot of things
that he liked in this conference report.
If we sit here and wait to pass things where we all get 100 percent
of what we want, nothing will ever pass the United States Congress.
Certainly, in a bill this large, when we reach the omnibus, that is
going to call for many compromises. This bill before us has called for
many compromises. But people have found a way to work in good faith.
My friend is perfectly in order to oppose the rule. That is a pretty
normal position for each side to take, minority and majority. I never
have any problem with that. I think we will pass the rule. I hope he
looks at the entire bill: the funding of the government and the Customs
Act, where he had some concerns, but also had many things to point to
that he thought were appropriate and good; and the Internet tax
prevention that we now make permanent, where I know my friend has
worked very hard for many years to do that.
And, yes, there will be some things in this bill that he doesn't
like. There are some things in this bill that I don't like. But I think
if you look at the merits of it, the permanent end of taxes on the
Internet, the Customs legislation that my friend very ably pointed out
has many good provisions; finally, the essential operation of
government for the next few days, so people negotiating in good faith
for both my friend's party and my party and from the administration can
actually arrive at a deal. I think there is a lot of merit in the
underlying legislation.
I would just ask that we be realistic. Again, my friend is perfectly
within his rights to oppose both these measures, the rule and the final
bill. I certainly understand his concern about the rule. If the roles
were reversed, my concerns would probably be similar. I hope he looks
to the underlying legislation when that vote comes and says, there are
a lot of good things here.
There is a lot of give-and-take by both sides. There is real
compromise. We have done a lot of that in the last few weeks under
Speaker Ryan. I think we have the opportunity to do more next year.
Let's pass the rule, pass the underlying legislation; get to finishing
our business in the next few days; hopefully give the American people
what they deserve: some peace, quiet, and certainty in the Christmas
season; and then come back here next year with an opportunity to build
on this and do some tremendous things in a bipartisan way. That is what
I intend to work for. I know that is what my friend will be working
for.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0945
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a senior member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
I am here to speak in support of the Customs bill that we will be
facing later today. It represents significant progress over the version
from earlier this summer that I opposed. Part of this progress is due
to strong bipartisan support from the Senate and bipartisan give-and-
take with some of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee.
I appreciate having worked with then-Chair Ryan and Chairman Brady to
see some of these elements improve. I think it is important to
recognize that the bill before us is substantially better. I know there
are concerns by some of my friends about currency manipulation, which I
share, and we have been pushing for and secured stronger provisions.
In the Customs bill, we have elements that represent the give-and-
take of a legislative process, working with the administration; and the
provisions, while no one would suggest they are perfect, are
substantially better than the situation we have right now. We will be
better off with the currency provisions in the Customs bill.
It contains many provisions that I fought for that are important to
my constituents--businesses in the Pacific Northwest--dealing with
unfair and outmoded tariff provisions, dealing with things like
performance outerwear, that I know I share with my friend from
Colorado. These are important both in terms of businesses that we
represent and constituents that we represent who value that equipment--
the shoes, the outdoor apparel--and making it more affordable.
Beyond the elements of making sure that the Customs system works more
appropriately, there are important things that I think all of us can
point to and be enthusiastic about. Both speakers have mentioned the
end of the importation of products that are made by child and forced
labor. There are strong provisions here to help us keep that out of the
stream of commerce.
My friend from Oklahoma referenced the ENFORCE Act, and there have
been problems--tires, solar panels--up in my area. We have had people
cheat and do so with impunity. Incorporating the provisions of the
ENFORCE Act gives us the tools to go after the cheaters, to make them
pay, and to protect American companies and their employees.
It permanently establishes the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center
to centralize and enforce trade enforcement. This is an area that I
have been working on throughout this process. In the Ways and Means
Committee, I introduced the STRONGER Act with my friend and former
fellow Northwesterner, Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington, to deal
with ways to better enforce our agreements.
Today trade agreements are complex and trade enforcement takes a long
period of time. They are expensive. Frankly, we are not equipped as
well as we should be to do the job of protecting Americans by enforcing
and implementing these agreements.
This legislation includes the trust fund for enforcement and in-
country capacity building. It provides for up to $30 million a year. It
may not seem like much when we are talking about hundreds of billions
of dollars in the Federal Government, but when you consider that the
budget of the United States Trade Representative is less than $60
million to do all of the things with which they are charged, being able
to have a $30 million a year enforcement fund is a very significant
advancement.
Now, I am mindful of the extraneous climate provisions. I think they
are unfortunate and should have been left out. I think my Republican
friends in the future are going to be embarrassed by doing things like
this, particularly when the rest of the world is in Paris, working to
try and help deal with the crisis that is carbon pollution and climate
change.
As a practical matter, again, the result of working with the
administration and people in the Senate, the provision that is stuck in
the bill, yes, is confusing, but it is much better than it was in June,
and I am convinced it doesn't change the status quo at all, nor
prohibit other efforts in different forums, such as Paris.
The optics are bad for my Republican friends, I think, and I do
believe that they will rue the day for doing things like this. But, as
a practical matter, we are not going to solve our climate problems
through international trade. This doesn't change that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Because of the composition of the Senate and
Republican opposition, we couldn't pass those things when we were in
charge. So we are going to do it through other mechanisms. This Customs
bill does not prevent that. I strongly urge my colleagues' favorable
consideration.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I want to thank my good friend from Oregon for coming
to the floor and for, frankly, more ably explaining the Customs portion
of this legislation than I could.
I want to commend him and his colleagues for working in a bipartisan
fashion to improve a bill that had passed earlier this year in ways
that I think broadly make it more acceptable
[[Page H9280]]
to a larger percentage in this body. He is to be commended for that. So
are his colleagues on that committee on both sides of the aisle. So is
the administration, which I know has been heavily involved in these
deliberations.
I think my friend makes an excellent argument for the passage of the
underlying legislation. When you combine that with a permanent
prohibition on Internet taxation--something I assume my friend also
supports--and the necessary continuing resolution to give us a few more
days to negotiate a bipartisan omnibus spending bill that, frankly,
both parties will need to contribute votes toward and that the
administration ultimately will have the prerogative of signing, I take
these to be hopeful signs.
With some of the things that have happened in the last few weeks on a
bipartisan transportation bill and on a bipartisan education bill and
with what I am convinced is essentially a bipartisan conference report
here today and with what will be a bipartisan omnibus bill, it sounds
to me like significant progress.
It is something that leaders on both sides of the aisle can take some
pride in as long as we get it done, hopefully, in a timely way next
week and then come back here and build on this progress for all of next
year, when we can move under regular order.
Again, I thank my friend for his hard work on the Customs portion of
this. I also thank him for giving what I thought was a very thoughtful,
constitutional lesson in give-and-take.
There are some things that we might all like to achieve, but that are
just simply not possible, given the distribution of political power,
the checks and balances in our system, and the fact that people do
have, indeed, differing opinions and perspectives.
But the fact that we have gotten to this point I think demonstrates
we can produce a good product even within a complex constitutional
system, with a rather polarized political environment, and given the
hard realities of divided government. I am pleased we have made the
progress that we have made, and I thank my friend for his participation
in that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman from Colorado and let me
thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for the thoughtful discussion and for
the tone in which it is offered.
Mr. Speaker, I think all of us certainly are interested in coming to
a place next week that embraces, really, the values of America and all
of our concerns, and, obviously, riders that are toxic are obstacles we
need to continue to discuss.
In my district, I have senior citizens with blue tarps on the tops of
their homes, blue tarps that have been there since the terrible
Hurricane Ike. Obviously, we need the Housing and Urban Development to
have funding that not only addresses affordable housing, but senior
housing repair.
It comes down through community development. In the manner in which
we are going through this, we are looking for that kind funding to make
sure that the plus-up of $80 billion that came about through the budget
agreement gets evenly distributed, if you will. What happens is that,
with the extenders of tax provisions that are unpaid for, the blue
tarps in my district continue to exist. Seniors have roofs that are
falling in.
I think that is an important issue at which many of us will be
looking this weekend, and we will be looking to the appropriators to do
what is right by the American people.
We wrote a letter regarding the Minority HIV/AIDS Program, which was
gutted out. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that HIV/AIDS is resurging
among young people and among minorities. This is no time to zero out
that funding.
As we go through this process, we are asking the question whether you
are putting in toxic riders, but are not focusing on funding that is
needed. The Thomas Street Clinic in my district needs the minority HIV
funding.
I know that my good friends Mr. Polis and Mr. Cole are certainly
interested in making sure that transportation funding matches the
funding that came about through the bill. Then, certainly, I hope that,
as I listen to the calm discussion by Mr. Polis, we can find a way to
eliminate the prohibition from the Centers for Disease Control to not
do their work.
Why are we preventing them from discerning the impact of gun violence
on suicide? of the impact of gun violence on young people who are
committing suicide? We have done research on drunk driving. We have
done research on cancer. We have done research on diabetes. We have
done research to move the country forward in a healthy manner. Why are
we blocking the CDC from assessing what the impact is from gun
violence?
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I now understand that the
Internet Tax Freedom Act is in this legislation and it is in this
legislation permanently. There was no hearing. I remember this bill on
the floor of the House in June.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of letters to include
for the Record. One is from Tom McGee, the President and CEO of the
International Council of Shopping Centers. One is from the NRF. One is
from the AFL-CIO.
December 10, 2015.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 70,000 members of the
International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), I am
writing to urge you to oppose the conference report on H.R.
644, Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act, which
contains a non-germane provision permanently extending the
Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA). This is considered a key
vote for ICSC.
Because PITFA was included without being paired with long
awaited remote sales tax collection legislation, the added
fiscal pressure being put on states and local governments
will result in less funds for first responders and
infrastructure and additional pressure to increase other
state and local taxes such as sales or property taxes. This
will truly add insult to injury for thousands of local
businesses across the country.
As an organization, ICSC supports PITFA but strongly
believes that a permanent restriction on states' ability to
tax telecommunications services should absolutely be linked
with the restoration of states' rights to collect sales taxes
that are already owed in 45 states today. It is not only a
missed opportunity to pursue good policy, but the manner in
which this provision is being advanced certainly represents a
departure from regular order.
After more than 20 years, close to 40 hearings and a
successful bipartisan vote in the Senate, it is time for
Congress to do the right thing and update sales tax
collection policy to reflect the 21st century marketplace.
The shopping center industry has sales that represent 15% of
U.S. GDP, employs 1 out of every 11 Americans and generates
$141 billion in sales tax revenue. Our industry touches
people's lives every day and is essential to the economic,
civic and social vibrancy of every community. We urge you to
send an important message on state tax policy and oppose H.R.
644. Please vote NO when the Trade Facilitation and Trade
Enforcement Act Conference report is voted on later this
week.
Sincerely,
Tom McGee,
President & CEO.
____
National Retail Federation,
Washington, DC, December 10, 2015.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan: On behalf
of the National Retail Federation (NRF), I would like to take
this opportunity to share our views on the Conference Report
to the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015
(HR 644). NRF is concerned with the last-minute inclusion of
the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA) as part of the
Conference Report, without also including legislation to
provide parity in sales tax treatment of internet sales with
sales in brick and mortar stores, like H.R. 2775, The Remote
Transactions Parity Act.
NRF has long supported the efforts to pass a Customs
Reauthorization bill, especially those provisions focused on
trade facilitation. We believe the Conference Report includes
provisions to help facilitate and streamline the Customs
process. While we strongly support enforcement of U.S. trade
laws, we remain concerned with the final enforcement language
and the impact it will have on retailers and other downstream
consumers.
Unfortunately we are extremely concerned about the
inclusion of the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA)
in the final conference report. Retailers have long believed
that it is appropriate to eliminate the
[[Page H9281]]
sales tax discrimination for brick and mortar stores as part
of Congressional consideration of PITFA. This past
Thanksgiving week-end was the first time that electronic
sales surpassed brick and mortar sales in that key metric for
retail sales. As more and more Main Street retailers close
their doors because they cannot compete, it is time for
Congress to remove the sales tax advantage for internet
sellers that is harming our communities. We need a level
playing field so retailers can compete without the government
advantaging one sector of the industry over another.
NRF is the world's largest retail trade association,
representing discount and department stores, home goods and
specialty stores, Main Street merchants, grocers,
wholesalers, chain restaurants and Internet retailers from
the United States and more than 45 countries. Retail is the
nation's largest private sector employer, supporting one in
four U.S. jobs--42 million working Americans. Contributing
$2.6 trillion to annual GDP, retail is a daily barometer for
the nation's economy.
We urge you to remove language on PITFA from the final
conference report, unless it is accompanied by sales tax
fairness.
Sincerely,
David French,
Senior Vice President,
Government Relations.
____
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations,
December 10, 2015.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I write to
urge you to oppose the conference report on H.R. 644, the
Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (Customs
Bill).
The Customs Bill, which when it emerged from the Senate had
bipartisan support and included provisions supported by both
labor and industry, was loaded up in the House with numerous
controversial and partisan provisions that weakened or
unacceptably altered it and would make it more difficult to
negotiate trade agreements that are good for workers and the
environment. Unfortunately, numerous of these unacceptable
provisions remain in the bill that will be voted upon.
Stripped from the final bill is a critical bipartisan
currency provision that would have made clear the U.S. can
treat currency manipulation as a countervailable subsidy. The
remaining currency provisions are a poor substitute, simply
calling for ``engagement'' and with so-called
``consequences'' that simply won't work--including the
possible exclusion from OPIC funding, something the worst
currency manipulators (including China and Japan) don't
receive anyway.
The conferenced Customs Bill also contains language that
U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) must not include
obligations regarding greenhouse gas emissions. This will
prevent the United States from making meaningful commitments
on climate policy. It is incomprehensible how a 21st century
trade agenda would ignore the reality of important climate
issues.
Also included in the bill is language weakening the
Menendez trafficking amendment, which barred Tier 3
trafficking nations from joining U.S. FTAs. Weakening this
provision by allowing a nation to be included should they
merely implement ``principal'' recommendations for changes,
undermines the U.S. commitment to lead on human trafficking
and raises doubt regarding the ability of the FTAs to protect
workers and ensure compliance by trading partners with
internationally recognized ILO labor rights, including the
right to be free from forced labor. This move is particularly
troubling given the recent interest expressed by Thailand in
joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Thailand is a
Tier 3 trafficking nation and should not be allowed to
participate in the TPP until such time as it is no longer
justifiably designated as a worst-trafficking nation. On a
related note, language is included in the bill that could be
used to prevent trade deals from ensuring that migrant
workers have effective protections and remedies against
fraud, trafficking, forced labor, and other forms of labor
exploitation and abuse.
This package also contains a harmful bill unrelated to
trade. We strenuously oppose the inclusion of the Permanent
Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA), which bans the authority of
state and local governments to impose taxes on internet
access. By restricting state and local government taxing
authority, this bill reduces the ability of state and local
governments to raise funds to invest in needed
infrastructure, education, health care, job training and
other vital public services. This unrelated harmful measure
was unfortunately added at the last minute.
While the bill does contain Rep. Sanchez's ENFORCE Act,
which would address the circumvention of antidumping and
countervailing duties and assist with addressing unfair
trade, other provisions in this bill remain unacceptable.
The Customs Conference Report unfortunately too closely
resembles the flawed House version of the bill and the AFL-
CIO urges you to oppose it.
Sincerely,
William Samuel,
Director, Government Affairs Department.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is, with what
you are doing, even though there is a 4-year lapse, you are
grandfathering this. My own State of Texas will lose $358 million,
Wisconsin $120 million, Ohio $65 million, and South Dakota will lose
about $13 million.
Are we going to replace those moneys from the Federal Government?
What are we going to do to the retail industry that has bricks and
mortar?
My friends, I am going to support a CR, but I do believe we should
work together to do things that impact us positively and not
negatively. Get rid of the riders and help our States, which have a
need to have this Internet tax provision lifted.
Mr. Speaker, as a senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee; as
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland
Security, and Investigations; and as the representative from Houston, I
rise in opposition to the ``Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act'' being
in this bill.
When originally enacted in 1998, the Internet Tax Freedom Act
established a temporary moratorium on multiple and discriminatory
taxation of the Internet as well as new taxes on Internet access.
This moratorium, however, is due to expire on October 1st of this
year.
Since 1998, Congress has extended the moratorium on a temporary
basis. The bill before us will make that moratorium permanent.
Unfortunately, in doing so, the bill also ends the Act's grandfather
protections for states that imposed such taxes prior to the Act's
enactment date.
Mr. Speaker, the bill is problematic for several reasons.
First, Congress, instead of supporting this seriously flawed
legislation, should be focusing on meaningful ways to help state and
local governments, taxpayers, and local retailers. The House can do
that by addressing the remote sales tax issue.
In addition to extending the expiring moratorium on a temporary
basis, the House should take up and send to the Senate legislation that
would give states the authority to collect sales taxes from remote
sellers.
Such a proposal would incentivize remote sellers to collect and remit
sales taxes as well as require states to simplify several procedures
that would benefit retailers.
Such legislation would enable states and local governments to collect
more than $23 billion in estimated uncollected sales taxes each year.
The measure would also help level the playing field for local
retailers--who must collect sales taxes--when they compete with out-of-
state businesses that do not collect these taxes.
Retail competitors should be able to compete fairly with their
internet counterparts at least with respect to sales tax policy.
The House should do its part and address the remote sales tax
disparity before the end of this Congress.
Second, this legislation will severely impact the immediate revenues
for the grandfather-protected states and all states progressively in
the long term.
The Congressional Budget Office, for example, estimates that this
bill will cost certain states ``several hundred million dollars
annually'' in lost revenues.
Indeed, the Federation of Tax Administrators has estimated that the
bill will cause the grandfather-protected states to lose at least $500
million in lost revenue annually.
For my home state of Texas, enactment of this bill will result in a
revenue loss of $358 million per year. Texas will not be alone in these
losses, annually: Wisconsin will lose about $127 million, Ohio will
lose about $65 million, and South Dakota will lose about $13 million.
Should this bill become law, state and local governments will have to
choose whether they will cut essential government services--such as
educating our children, maintaining needed transportation
infrastructure, and providing essential public health and safety
services--or shift the tax burden onto other taxpayers through
increased property, income, and sales taxes.
Meanwhile, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated
that the permanent moratorium will deny the non-grandfathered states of
almost $6.5 billion in potential state and local sales tax revenues
each year in perpetuity.
This bill will burden taxpayers, while excluding an entire industry
from paying their fair share of taxes.
Finally, this bill ignores the fundamental nature of the Internet.
The original moratorium was intentionally made temporary to ensure
that Congress, industry, and state and local governments would be able
to monitor the issue and make adjustments where necessary to
accommodate new technologies and market realities.
The Act was intended as a temporary measure to assist and nurture the
fledgling Internet that--back in 1998--was still in its commercial
[[Page H9282]]
infancy. Yet, this bill ignores the significantly changed environment
of today's internet.
The bill's supporters continue to believe that the internet still is
in need of extraordinary protection in the form of exemption from all
state taxation.
But, the internet of 2015 is drastically different from its 1998
predecessor. And, surely the internet and its attendant technology will
continue to evolve.
Permanently extending the tax moratorium severely limits Congress's
ability to revisit and make any necessary adjustments.
Simply put, a permanent moratorium is unwise.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 235 and I reserve the
balance of my time.
The bill is misguided legislation that will devastate state revenues,
especially for those states currently protected by the grandfather
clause, and could force state governments to eliminate essential
governmental programs and services, while increasing the burden on
taxpayers.
For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed
legislation; that makes the internet tax moratorium permanent, in part.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to thank my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from
Texas, for coming down and raising important issues.
I am not involved in the negotiations where HUD is concerned, but it
would be my hope that her concerns would be addressed, quite frankly. I
think, with the additional funds that are a product of the bipartisan
negotiations of the Budget Act, which I know my friend supported, there
is certainly a prospect that that will occur.
The negotiations that are going on now are indeed bipartisan. I have
no doubt my friend's point of view is ably represented by her
Democratic colleagues in those negotiations and by the administration.
So, hopefully, we will arrive at a product in the next few days that
will address some of those concerns.
I want to reinforce my friend's remarks about moving in a cooperative
way. Again, we are not going to agree on every part of every piece of
legislation, but I think the underlying legislation that we present
today is a product of bipartisan cooperation and of compromise and of
give-and-take. It is my hope that many people on both sides of the
aisle will be able to support that.
There are three important elements of the Customs proposals. My
friend from Oregon earlier laid out the many virtues with them, and,
frankly, my friend from Colorado has extolled many parts of them.
The prohibition of taxation on the Internet I think is something we
have routinely passed through this body since 1998. It has usually not
been a particularly contentious issue. It is something we agree on on
both sides of the aisle. Making it permanent makes a lot of sense, and
I am hopeful that many of my colleagues who have worked so hard on that
will see that as an advantage.
Finally, I don't think we disagree on a short-term continuing
resolution because we know that our Representatives on the
Appropriations Committee--certainly Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member
Lowey--are working really hard to find a bipartisan compromise.
{time} 1000
Now, I will remind my friends, we are not going to agree on every
part of this bill. There will be elements, so-called riders, that are
in them that probably some of my friends don't like. There will be
Democratic riders in this bill, not just Republican riders. That is
just the process of normal legislation.
Congress has every right to use the power of the purse. I don't know
any executive branch, be it Republican or Democrat, that ever likes
Congress getting down to the details of this. They just expect us to
write a check for whatever they ask for. Well, that is not the way our
Constitution is set up.
While the executive branch has a range of powers and authorities that
are unique to itself, at the end of the day, we do fund every single
activity that they engage in. At the end of the day, we have the right
to say: Well, we agree with you here, here, and here, but we disagree
here, and we are not funding that activity.
Now, in this case, I would always point out that wherever we end up
at the end of the day is, by necessity, going to be a matter of
compromise. My friends, frankly, don't have the congressional strength
in either the House or the Senate to dictate to us, but we don't have
it to dictate to them either.
Obviously, the President of the United States is of my friend's
political party, and he has got to sign this legislation. So anything
that gets done is going to involve a lot of compromises. Anything that
comes to this floor, whether you like or dislike it, will have been
approved at some level or, at least, accepted at some level by Members
of both parties, as this is what we had to agree to.
So I am optimistic about that, and I am very pleased, frankly, that
this process is largely driven by the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, Mr. Rogers, and by Mrs. Lowey from New York. I know them to
be exceptional legislators. I know that all parties concerned here and
their Senate counterparts and their administration counterparts are
involved in a good faith effort to give us a good funding bill for next
year and to set the stage for what we hope is a normal appropriations
process.
If we have that process next year, my friends on both sides of the
aisle will have the opportunity to see every bill on the floor, the
opportunity to offer any amendment they want, the opportunity to
literally educate the committee about some concern that may be unique
to their district or something that they understand, frankly, better
than the members of the Appropriations Committee. That is the process
that we are trying to get back to. I know it will serve the country
well if we can actually reach that.
What we have done in the last few months of this year has actually
set that up: the budget agreement, which was proceeded by a temporary
CR and the budget agreement that came out of that, the omnibus we are
working on now, and the legislation that has passed in the last few
weeks in a very bipartisan fashion on education and highways. All of
those things create a foundation for what can be an exceptionally
productive year next year and one where we move through regular order.
Again, I thank my friend from Texas for bringing her concerns to the
floor. I look forward to working with her on the underlying
legislation, which I hope has enough items in it to attract significant
bipartisan support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee and as
someone who has been involved in negotiations in regards to the Customs
bill before us today, I rise in strong support of that bill. I
encourage my colleagues to do the same.
The Customs bill before us today is not the Customs bill that was
reported out of the House in June of this year, a bill, quite frankly,
that I couldn't support because of extraneous provisions--controversial
provisions--that got included in it.
Through the product of the give-and-take in the negotiations, I think
we reached a good bipartisan compromise. This is what bipartisanship
looks like: the cooperation, the give-and-take. It is not a perfect
bill. I know there are still some objections to it.
At its crux, however, this bill provides us important tools and
resources to enhance enforcement mechanisms so we can enforce trade
agreements and the standards that we are trying to elevate in these
trade agreements. For instance, this bill, with the language that I
worked on very hard with my colleagues Mr. Levin and Mr. Lewis on the
Ways and Means Committee will finally end the importation of goods and
products based on the exploitation of child and forced and slave labor.
That is in this bill.
This bill also includes the full ENFORCE Act on the Senate side, the
PROMISE Act on the House side that again gives us additional tools to
enforce elevated standards in the trade agreements that we lacked
previously.
[[Page H9283]]
It also establishes for the first time an interagency trade
enforcement center to require greater coordination from our agencies
when it comes to the implementation and the enforcement of trade
provisions that matter, leveling the playing field for our businesses,
our workers, and our farmers.
With the help of my friend from Oregon, we were able to get included
a trade enforcement trust fund so that resources are dedicated for the
enforcement of trade agreements. I hear that a lot from our colleagues
that they are not so much concerned with what goes into the trade
agreements; they are more concerned about the lack of follow-up and the
enforcement of the trade agreements. Again, because of the progress we
have made and the creation of this trust fund, there will be resources
in the future that will enable us to better enforce the trade
agreements that are in front of us.
This also, again, to the credit of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer), establishes a Super 301 section, enhanced trade
enforcement on key priorities, such as labor, environmental, and human
rights standards that are now being negotiated in the body of these
trade agreements. They are fully enforceable like any other provision.
This Super 301 gives us tools now to be able to follow that up and
enforce it.
This also establishes a State trade and export promotion program to
help our smaller businesses, our manufacturers in our respective States
to get in the game and be able to offer more export opportunities to
them. We know that with exporting companies their workers are paid
roughly 18 to 19 percent more than other workers in our economy, so
this is a good thing to help promote exports in our own country.
This also provides our Treasury-enhanced tools when it comes to
fighting against the manipulation of currency in the foreign markets.
The Bennett language that was agreed to in this language is a step in
the right direction when it comes to the enforcement of currency
manipulation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, again, that is a source of concern that many
of our colleagues have expressed concern about and, I think,
legitimately so. Again, progress was made in this Customs bill when it
comes to currency manipulation.
For all these reasons, I think it is important that we move forward
on this Customs bill and give this administration and future
administrations the tools they need in order to enforce trade
agreements so we can elevate standards and begin to level the playing
field for our workers, our businesses, and our farmers so that they can
be as successful as they can be in the 21st century global economy. I
encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to quickly respond to my friend's point and, number one,
thank him for his hard work in getting us to this position on this very
important Customs legislation. I appreciate the bipartisan manner in
which the work product was clearly achieved. I take a lot of hope from
the fact that our current Speaker was actually the chairman of the
committee in much of that process, and obviously Mr. Brady from Texas
continues in that tradition. So I am pretty hopeful that we are seeing
a good, open process that is producing products that Members on both
sides of this Chamber are happy to support and participate in. So this
is a good and hopeful thing. Again, I thank my friend for coming back
and educating us about an area he knows a great deal more about than I
do.
I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Cole
has been a leader in this area for many years now, and I appreciate
that leadership.
I rise today, as chairman of the House Small Business Committee, in
strong support of H.R. 644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade
Enforcement Act of 2015.
The importance of robust international trade for America's small
businesses cannot be overstated. Small businesses represent 98 percent
of all goods-exporting firms in the United States--98 percent are small
businesses--establishing our Nation's role as the world's leader in
international trade. Seven out of every 10 new jobs in this country are
created by small businesses. So if we want to improve the economy and
trade, small businesses are an integral part of doing that. In my home
State of Ohio alone, more than 1.5 million jobs are tied to
international trade, many of them with these small firms.
The bipartisan Customs reauthorization bill before us today will give
small businesses the confidence and security they need to compete in a
global marketplace. Specifically, it accomplishes this important goal
by making sure international trade agreements are working to benefit
America's small businesses and the employees of those small businesses.
That is why I am pleased that the finished bill incorporates language
that our committee helped to craft to ensure we are doing everything we
can to keep the doors of trade open to small businesses. We have done
this in that committee, in general, in a bipartisan fashion.
By modernizing the procedures and systems used by Customs and Border
Protection, this bill also improves trade facilitation and makes sure
their safeguards are working as intended.
By giving the Treasury new tools to crack down on currency
manipulation, this bill ensures that foreign competitors like China
aren't taking advantage of our workers and small businesses. That has
been a top issue for those of us that have dealt with trade, and that
is the concept, that the Chinese have been manipulating their currency
to give them an unfair advantage over America's businesses, that this
bill helps to deal with.
By empowering the CPB and the Department of Commerce, this bill will
make it easier to hold bad actors accountable when they engage in
unfair trade or evasive trade practices. Mr. Speaker, this is truly
commonsense legislation that will help America's small businesses at a
time when they need our help to compete in the era of globalization.
I also thank my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Brady), the
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, for his leadership on this
issue. He has worked on this since he introduced a Customs
reauthorization bill back in 2011, and I know that is the basis for
today's legislation. I again thank Chairman Cole for his hard work in
this area because trade is important to jobs. Yes, it is important to
large corporations, but it is especially important to those small
businesses all across America who engage in international trade. In the
Small Business Committee, we are encouraging them more and more to do
that. That means more jobs for more families all over this country.
I urge my colleagues to support this.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, even after we pass this continuing resolution today, we
will still be just 5 days away from a government shutdown. That is no
way to run the greatest, freest, most prosperous country on the face of
the Earth. We agree on so many of the issues. I urge my colleagues to
stop the partisan games.
We have shown in recent weeks we can produce good, bipartisan
legislation when we just put the controversial, divisive poison pills
on the side. Look at what we accomplished in transportation and in
education. Let's continue that trend. Let's drop the ideological wish
list for another time and pass the spending bill without the last-
minute hysterics and partisan riders.
In recent weeks, Americans have witnessed two senseless, horrific
mass shootings: one very near to my district in Colorado that took
three lives, and another in San Bernardino, California, that took 14
lives. These slayings are heartbreaking and tragic. Sadly, no one can
any longer use the adjective to describe them as ``shocking.'' There
have been 355 mass shootings in 2015, which, themselves, are just a
small portion of the 48,000 incidents of gun violence so far this year.
While I strongly support the rights given to Americans in our Second
Amendment, I believe there are commonplace measures that we must take
[[Page H9284]]
to curtail gun violence. A commonsense improvement we can make is
passing legislation to keep individuals who are suspected of terrorist
activity from purchasing firearms.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule that would allow the House to consider H.R. 1076, the Denying
Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015. H.R. 1076
would amend the criminal code to stop the issuance of firearm licenses
to people on the terrorism watch list.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. It is time to act. Let's
make it harder for criminals and terrorists to quietly assemble
arsenals designed to kill innocent Americans. We can do that. We can
protect the Second Amendment. We can implement commonsense reforms that
keep America safe.
{time} 1015
There is nothing Congress can do to end gun violence, but we can and
we must take action to reduce gun violence. If we defeat the previous
question, we will do that. It will pass, and it will become law, and
the American people will be safer. Stop standing in the way, Mr.
Speaker.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First, before I close, I want to thank my friend for the debate and
for his thoughtful remarks.
Not surprisingly, there will be a couple of areas in my close where I
disagree with my good friend. One of them is the process itself. I
share, actually, his frustration and the need for us to move under
regular order. I share the frustration I think both sides share in this
that we are doing an omnibus, but I remind my friends, we moved six
bills across the floor here. Every bill has moved through the full
Committee on Appropriations.
Frankly, our friends on the other side of the rotunda need to take a
considerable responsibility for the delay in the appropriations, since
they prevented the Senate from actually picking up and acting on
individual bills. I think, frankly, had they done so, we would have had
a more orderly process and been out of here in an easier way. My hope
is next year they will do that, because I think in the bipartisan
budget compromise, we set a framework up by deciding early on what the
top line numbers are for next year, where that process can, indeed,
occur. I certainly promise to work with my friends on the other side of
the aisle to see that we restore regular order, bring each
appropriations bill down here.
I am going to disagree with my friend, too, on this terrorist watch
list idea. This is a very interesting point. I think Members on both
sides are equally committed to making sure all of our citizens are
safe, but the terrorist watch list that my friend has talked about is
one of the more mysterious lists in the United States.
As I read the press, I find one article that tells me there are
47,000 people on it; another one that tells me, no, there is 470,000
people; yet another that tells me there are 1 million people on it or
more. I do know that the American Civil Liberties Union has called the
terrorist watch list a ``massive, virtually standardless, government
watch list scheme that ensnares innocent people and encourages racial
and religious profiling.'' Now, that is not from a conservative group.
That is the American Civil Liberties Union.
I also know in this Chamber, one of our distinguished colleagues, the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who, when he was a State
senator, found out accidentally going to the airport he was on the
terrorist watch list. He found out another Democratic colleague,
another State senator, was also on the terrorist watch list. They
inquired as to why, and they were told: Well, we can't tell you.
Eventually, working with the Sergeant at Arms of the California
Senate, they were able to determine Mr. McClintock had been confused
with an IRA--Irish Republican Army--terrorist, and the other gentleman
had been confused with somebody else. We know that the late Senator
Kennedy was, at one time, on the terrorist watch list. So I think this
is a very imperfect tool that will ensnare lots of innocent Americans
in it.
It is also worth noting--and this was a fact that was made acquainted
to me by our good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell)
who, along with his distinguished record of service for over 21 years
in the United States Army, is an arms manufacturer and an arms seller--
he pointed out actually the terrorist watch list is one of the lists
that is used by the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms group to decide
whether or not to issue a permit. So it is a factor in now. It is not
exclusive. You wouldn't exclude somebody simply because they were
there, but it is a factor taken into consideration.
I say this just to suggest that perhaps we shouldn't seize on this as
a be-all and a political talking point. This is worth a real serious
look as to whether or not this particular list, how it is compiled, who
is on it, what is the appropriate way to use it?
I think the last thing we should do is attach it to legislation
without the appropriate hearing and discussion of it, which actually I
think my friend on the other side would generally be in favor of.
There are plenty of reasons, anecdotal and serious studies, when,
again, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union look at this as a
very imperfect tool that will violate the civil liberties of the
average American. Again, I caution my friends on the other side. It is
a great political talking point, but I think it is a pretty imperfect
tool, and I think they would find themselves embarrassed, frankly, were
it used in the manner that they suggest here.
Mr. Speaker, let me move to my close. Passage of the continuing
resolution, as we both agree, is critical to prevent a government
shutdown and, frankly, to allow both sides and the administration to
continue to negotiate. A CR passed the Senate yesterday by voice vote.
We should pass this rule, and we should support the underlying
legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 560 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney
General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of
firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected
dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1076.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To
[[Page H9285]]
defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a
chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites
the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that
``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the
previous question passes the control of the resolution to the
opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15,
1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule
resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a
member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry,
asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G.
Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been
refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had
asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is
entitled to the first recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236,
nays 177, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 690]
YEAS--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--177
Adams
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--20
Aguilar
Boyle, Brendan F.
DeFazio
Fincher
Green, Gene
Harper
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson, Sam
Kildee
Kuster
Meadows
Nolan
Payne
Pompeo
Reichert
Sanchez, Loretta
Schrader
Schweikert
Sessions
Westmoreland
{time} 1051
Mr. RANGEL and Ms. EDWARDS changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. PETERSON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. McCarthy was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Legislative Program
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, looking ahead to next week, Members are
advised that no votes are expected in the House on Monday.
Members are further advised that first votes of the week are expected
on Tuesday at 6:30 p.m., and it is my intent to stay until we get our
work done.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
[[Page H9286]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236,
noes 174, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 691]
AYES--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--174
Adams
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--23
Aguilar
Boyle, Brendan F.
DeFazio
DeSantis
Fincher
Frelinghuysen
Green, Gene
Harper
Jenkins (KS)
Johnson, Sam
Kildee
Kuster
Loebsack
Meadows
Nolan
Payne
Pompeo
Sanchez, Loretta
Schrader
Schweikert
Sessions
Smith (TX)
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining.
{time} 1059
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 691, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
____________________