Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 83 (Wednesday, May 25, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 83 (Wednesday, May 25, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3105-H3113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 2012, ENERGY POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT
OF 2016; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5233, CLARIFYING
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT IN PROVIDING FOR DC HOME RULE ACT OF 2016; AND
PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 27, 2016, THROUGH
JUNE 6, 2016

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 744 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 744

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2012) to
provide for the modernization of the energy policy of the
United States, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 114-55 shall be considered as adopted. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce and the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to commit
with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. If S. 2012, as amended, is passed, then it shall
be in order for the chair of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or his designee to move that the House insist on its
amendment to S. 2012 and request a conference with the Senate
thereon.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5233) to repeal
the Local Budget

[[Page H3106]]

Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012, to amend the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act to clarify the respective roles of the
District government and Congress in the local budget process
of the District government, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from May
27, 2016, through June 6, 2016--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
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. BURGESS. 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 Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 744 provides for the
consideration of S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016,
and H.R. 5233, Clarifying Congressional Intent in Providing for DC Home
Rule Act of 2016.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided amongst the
majority and minority members of the Committees on Energy and Commerce
and Natural Resources for S. 2012. As S. 2012, as amended, is a
comprehensive compilation of energy legislation that has already passed
the House, the Committee on Rules made no further amendments in order.
However, the rule affords the minority the customary motion to
recommit, a final opportunity to amend the legislation should the
minority choose to exercise that option.
The rule further provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided
between the majority and minority of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform on H.R. 5233. No amendments were made in order as the
bill is a targeted response to what Members of the House have perceived
as an unlawful action taken by the District of Columbia in
contravention of the Federal Home Rule Act. The minority is, however,
afforded the customary motion to recommit, a final chance to amend the
legislation.
Finally, the rule contains the standard tools to allow the orderly
management of the floor of the House of Representatives during an
upcoming district work period.
The House amendment to S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization Act
of 2016, builds on the work of the House. The House has done this work
over the past year and a half to update the Nation's energy laws and
move the country forward on energy policy. The bills included in this
package include work from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the
Agriculture Committee, Committee on Natural Resources, and the
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
While many House committees have had input on this package, Members
can feel comfortable that a wide array of opinions and positions are
represented in the legislation. This is how the House works its will
most effectively, by combining various pieces of legislation into one
package.
In amending S. 2012, the Senate passed energy legislation. Following
passage of S. 2012 in the House, both bodies will be able to begin to
conference the differences in the two bills, a further step in the
regular order of this bill becoming a law.
The legislation will benefit Americans across the country:
modernizing our energy infrastructure; expediting and improving forest
management; providing for greater opportunities on Federal lands for
hunting, fishing, and shooting; and prioritizing science research using
Federal taxpayer dollars.
S. 2012, as amended, includes various pieces of legislation
considered and passed by the House not only in the current 114th
Congress, but it also includes many pieces of bipartisan legislation
from the 112th and 113th Congresses.
A major win for the American people in this package is the provisions
allowing for expanded access by sportsmen, fishermen, and recreational
shooters to Federal lands, lands that should have always been
accessible to all Americans for various legal and constitutional
activities.
Further, the legislation before us focuses on protecting American
interests in a world where uncertainty due to terrorism and unfriendly
and unstable regimes in the Middle East threaten American access to
reliable sources of energy. We have long believed that America should
focus less on relying on foreign energy sources, given the abundance of
resources below our very feet across this Nation. Only if Federal
policies are aligned with this view, which the House will do with this
package, can our country fully focus on becoming energy secure.
The second piece of legislation contained in today's rule addresses
the House concerns with recent actions taken by the District of
Columbia's Mayor and City Council. H.R. 5233, Clarifying Congressional
Intent in Providing for DC Home Rule Act of 2016, repeals the Local
Budget Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012, a referendum passed in the
District of Columbia, which many believe violates both the U.S.
Constitution and the Federal Home Rule Act.
When the Founding Fathers crafted our Constitution, they acknowledged
the special status that the Nation's Capital held and created a special
relationship between it and the Federal Government not enjoyed by other
States and other localities.
While some argue that the District of Columbia should be entirely
self-governed, that is not how our Constitution treats the Federal
city. Article I, section 8, clause 17 states that the Congress of the
United States shall have the power--I am quoting from the Constitution
here--``to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over
such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings.''

{time} 1230

The District of Columbia, falling squarely within the parameters of
this clause, is, therefore, subject to Congress' exclusive exercise
over its laws.
I have no doubt that a strong debate will surround the consideration
of H.R. 5233, as we heard in the Committee on Rules last night, but
Congress would be relinquishing its duty under the United States
Constitution to oversee the governance of the Nation's Capital.
Today's rule will allow the House to complete the final two pieces of
legislation for the month of May, a month where the House of
Representatives has passed legislation to provide funding for our
military bases, funding for our veterans, funding for energy and water
policies; to provide new authorities and funding to combat the growing
threat of the Zika virus; to update our Nation's chemical laws; to
provide help to those in this country facing opioid addictions; and to
provide tools to our Nation's armed services necessary to keep our
citizens safe from the growing threat of terrorism. It has been one of
the most productive months of the year for the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule which joins two
disparate

[[Page H3107]]

issues. The first, District of Columbia budget autonomy. The second,
pursuing an energy bill that prioritizes an outdated energy policy.
First, D.C. budget autonomy. Mr. Speaker, Congress sits in the
District of Columbia, and our presence looms far beyond the footprint
of the buildings. Congress has mandated that the government of the
District of Columbia pass every budget plan--every spending plan down
to the penny of their own money that they raise--through Congress.
But in 2012, the District of Columbia exerted its own authority and
passed the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012 and essentially
said: We will allocate our own local funds ourselves unless Congress
overrides our plan, and we will only ask permission beforehand when we
spend money that comes from the Federal Treasury.
The bill before us, H.R. 5233, would repeal the District's local law,
keep the District of Columbia from spending its own money on local
services, and prohibit the District from granting itself budget
autonomy in the future.
For far too long, the residents of the District have paid their fair
share of taxes and have not had full representation in Congress. The
District sends young people off to war, but doesn't have an equal voice
in either going to war or how the country is governed. In fact, it
reminds me a lot of a plantation.
Subjecting the District to the lengthy and uncertain congressional
appropriations process for its own use of their local tax collection
imposes operational and financial hardships for the District, burdens
not borne by any other local government in the country. In addition to
that, it is more expensive to them.
It defies reason that the House majority would continue this
overreach, and I urge each considerate Republican to rethink their
position. In fact, there are some key Republicans who do support the
District's budget autonomy. The Oversight and Government Reform
Committee's last four chairmen--including Republicans Tom Davis and
Darrell Issa--worked to give D.C. budget autonomy. I urge my Republican
colleagues to follow suit.
Second, the rule would allow the House to replace the text of the
Senate's bipartisan energy reform legislation with the House's partisan
energy bill. Time and again, we have seen the Senate come to a
reasonable, bipartisan compromise, but the House chases a partisan
agenda and derails the legislative process every time.
The House proposal encourages an outdated energy policy that favors
fossil fuels above the clean and renewable energy sources, and it seeks
to roll back important environmental protections. The majority's
insistence on negating environmental protections and doubling down on
their attacks on environmental laws is a troubling waste of time.
Nevertheless, Democrats will fight to protect the environment and
precious natural resources.
The bill locks in fossil fuel consumption for years to come by
repealing current law aimed at reducing the government's carbon
footprint. It also puts up barriers to the integration of clean,
renewable energy technologies, all while rolling back the energy
efficiency standards. In the past, efficiency standards were an area of
bipartisan compromise. Not anymore.
Americans cannot afford the Republican majority's head-in-the-sand
approach to climate change and energy consumption. In fact, I
understand that the presumed Presidential candidate of the Republican
Party had applied to build a wall on one of his foreign golf courses,
blaming climate change for the erosion. So if he believes it in a
foreign country, I certainly hope he will think about believing it
here.
I urge my colleagues to work toward an all-of-the-above strategy that
will modernize our Nation's energy infrastructure in a way that
addresses climate change, promotes clean energy, drives innovation, and
ensures a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I would remind the House that this energy legislation has worked its
way through the House for the last 18 months; and, indeed, the two
previous Congresses, multiple committees have had input on this. It has
been one of the most thoroughly vetted pieces of legislation. I cannot
tell you the number of hearings, the number of markups that I have sat
through in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It has had similar
treatment over in the Senate. The concept of getting this bill through
the House, going to conference with the Senate, this is a good product
and is worthy of the support of this body.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a hardworking Member who
represents 700,000 people who have no say because this body decides
everything that they do. As I pointed out before, they pay their taxes
and they send their children off to war, but she cannot vote in this
House in any way to affect anything.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my good friend from
New York State for the way she has always understood and championed
with respect to the District of Columbia, which also happens to be the
capital of the United States. But, as she said, it is more than the
Capitol and this building. It is where almost 700,000 Americans live.
Mr. Speaker, I must strongly oppose that portion of the bill
providing for consideration of H.R. 5233. Understand the spectacle we
have ongoing here. A strong Republican House is actively sponsoring a
bill that repeals a local law, a local law that in this case authorizes
the District of Columbia government to spend its own local funds
without congressional approval.
Who do the Republicans think they are, that the people I represent
should ask for their approval to spend, and to process funds that they
had nothing to do with raising?
Understand, no Federal funds are involved, not one penny, but those
pennies, over $7 billion--and I want people who come to the floor to
tell me if their State raises $7 billion on its own. Over $7 billion.
These are our pennies. Not a cent of Federal money is even implicated.
Let's go back to Republican principles to understand what is
happening on this floor today because it is going to happen twice. My
Republican friends propose in this rule--these are the same friends who
despise the Federal reach, despise it so much that every year they try
to give back what have long been Federal matters to the States, like
the Department of Education. Need I go through the laundry list? The
one thing they stand for in this Congress and have stood for throughout
human time is that they prefer that power over the people be exercised
at the State and local level. That is what they stand for. There are
not many things that you can say a particular party stands for. Local
control is certainly their cardinal principle.
But look what they are doing this afternoon. They are doubling down.
That is not just a matter of emphasis. That means double bills. They
are doubling down to use the awesome power of the Federal Government
against a local district. If you will excuse me, I regard that as very
un-Republican.
We are talking about two provisions--not just the rule before us--
that use identical language, as if to say, you know, we really mean it,
District of Columbia, because we are going to do it twice. We want to
be doubly sure that we keep this local district from enforcing its own
local budget.
So what is the point of this bill if they are doing it twice?
This bill is a pretense. It is solely designed to lay the predicate
for another action that has occurred this very morning in the Committee
on Appropriations. How coincidental. I sat through a Committee on
Appropriations markup where a rider, using the very same language that
is proposed through this rule, and that rider was indeed passed by the
House appropriations subcommittee.
Heavens. I wonder if in the history of the House of Representatives
we have ever had this Congress or the Congress of the United States to
be so threatened by what a local jurisdiction would do that it proposes
not one bill, but two, to keep that local jurisdiction

[[Page H3108]]

from proceeding. We are not seceding from the United States. We are
simply trying to spend our own money.
So here we have a bill twice over because the--appropriations bill
contains the same language, understand, despite another of their rules
that prohibits legislating on an appropriations bill. The Republican
leadership included the text of H.R. 5233 in the appropriations bill
for what appears to be a very good reason. They recognize that that is
the only chance they have of enacting the text of the rule before you,
and that is to do so in an appropriations bill. So they are doing it
twice for good measure, but the only way it is going to pass is
attaching it to some must-pass bill.
The Senate--and I say this on this floor--does not have the votes to
pass H.R. 5233 itself. And even if it did, the President of the United
States, who has long supported budget autonomy, put it in his own
budgets, has said he would veto it. The Executive Statement of
Administration Policy that came out yesterday indicated so.
This may be news to some Members of this body, but I am the only
Member of Congress who was elected by the almost 700,000 American
citizens who live in the District of Columbia, and my constituents are
the only American citizens who are affected by this bill.
You might be able to understand the anger of my constituents if you
knew these numbers. The people I represent pay more taxes than 22
States pay.
Or you want another one that would make you understand the anger of
my constituents?
They are number one per capita in the Federal taxes paid to support
their homeland, highest taxes per capita in the United States. And yet
this very day, twice--first with respect to this rule, then with
respect to the bill--every single Member of Congress will get a vote on
this bill solely concerning the District of Columbia except the Member
of Congress who represents the District of Columbia and is elected to
represent them.

{time} 1245

If you have never felt like a despot before, I hope that side of the
aisle understands how it feels and what it looks like.
The Republican leadership has claimed that it is committed to letting
the House work its will on legislation. However, yesterday, the Rules
Committee, on a party-line vote, prevented me from offering my
amendment to this bill to the House floor. What are you afraid of, if
my amendment comes to the House floor that says, ``Congress, you do it;
you grant D.C. budget autonomy''? Are you afraid you can't do it? Sure
you can do it. Or, at least let us do it. Give D.C. some respect.
My amendment was the only chance for D.C. residents to have a say on
the bill during floor consideration. So even though you could have,
obviously, and would have defeated my amendment to say, ``You do it,
you grant us budget autonomy,'' what in the world kept you from
allowing us the respect of bringing that amendment to counter what you
are doing today, particularly knowing that we can't counter what you
are doing today?
My amendment, of course, would have called the question on whether
Members support or oppose local control of local jurisdictions over
their own budget. Do Members oppose budget autonomy because the
District initiated it? Or do they actually want to toss their own local
control principles out of the Capitol window through a vote requiring
Federal approval of local funds?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 3 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. My amendment would have made the text of D.C.'s Local
Budget Autonomy Act Federal law. It would have simply said, look, if
you don't like what the District did, you do it. We would have lost.
But you would at least have given to us the respect that we are
entitled to as American citizens--afraid even to do that.
The Local Budget Autonomy Act is already law. The District government
has begun to implement it, and I applaud them for doing so. When you
are up against a despotic House of Representatives, the only way to
proceed in a democracy is to move on your own, or else they will say:
See, we waited them out and there is nothing they can do. There is only
one of them against all of us.
Only one court opinion has, in fact, upheld the Budget Autonomy Act,
though the good Member on the other side implied that this was a
lawless act. Well, let me tell you what the court said, without going
through all of it:
Forthwith, enforce all provisions of the Local Budget
Autonomy Act of 2012.

That is the law. Who is being lawless, who is being unprincipled is
any majority that would want to be involved with the local funds of any
American jurisdiction.
When Members cast their vote today on the bill, they will be voting
on a bill to require Congress to approve a local budget. How un-
Republican. And worse, undemocratic.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the Founders recognized that, within the District of
Columbia, this was a unique entity. But Congress, in its benevolence,
granted the District of Columbia limited autonomy in the Home Rule Act
of 1973. That autonomy did not extend as far as what the current Mayor
and city council envisioned it to.
The Home Rule Act maintained the role of the Federal Government in
the District's budget process; and, indeed, the Federal Government has
had to step in as late as the 1990s because the District had so
mismanaged its finances.
Then, the District of Columbia Financial Control Board had to be
instituted in order to correct the many financial disasters that the
District of Columbia government had created for itself. Congress gave
the board the power to override the D.C. government where it saw fit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Meadows), from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
where this bill originated.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his
eloquent words.
As we look at this particular bill, there is a lot that has been said
about what home rule is and what it is not. There is a lot that has
been said about what the law is and what it is not, and yet it is
undeniable that the Constitution actually reserved for this esteemed
body the power to legislate over all affairs within the District, going
back to Article I, section 8 of our Constitution.
And yet in 1973, Mr. Speaker, this body took on a law, debated it in
both the House and the Senate, to actually take some of those
authorities granted by the Constitution and allow the District to
actually put forth laws with regard to local issues.
Now, specifically reserved in that 1973 law was the whole issue of
the budget and appropriations. As we started to look at this particular
function--my good friend, the Delegate from the District, obviously has
talked very seriously about the law.
Well, the law was very clear in 1973 on what we passed. Actually,
Charles Diggs--Chairman Diggs--had what they called the Diggs
Compromise that specifically was spelled out in a dear colleague letter
on the fact that budgetary control would remain with this body and,
indeed, with the appropriators. Yet somehow we see a decision by a
superior court as having the effect of law?
Well, we know from our civics class that it is this body that is
putting forth Federal law. It cannot be a local jurisdiction that comes
in and usurps the power of the Federal law with its local mandates.
So, Mr. Speaker, while my good friend and I will disagree perhaps on
a number of issues, what we should agree on is the fact that the
Constitution reserved this right for Congress. The Constitution and,
indeed, those relegated and delegated powers in 1973 were specific in
keeping the appropriations and budgetary process within this body. To
ignore that would be, honestly, ignoring the debate that happened then,
debate that happens now, and sworn testimony in hearings that, indeed,
those who crafted this particular law are all in agreement that this
was the intent of Congress.
So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to not only
support this, but reaffirm the role that Congress has and make sure
that we keep it within this body.

[[Page H3109]]

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 13 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. My good friend Mr. Meadows speaks as if he didn't speak
up for the Congress of the United States with its awesome power, then
Congress would be stripped of its power by the District of Columbia--
please.
If there is any concern here about this bill, the one thing my good
friend should not do is to base it on what lawyers say. The latest and
most definitive, on what lawyers say is a court of law.
I want to indicate what happened, because the matter was first in the
Federal district court, then appealed to the Federal court of appeals.
The Federal court of appeals heard oral argument and received briefs.
It looked at this--and we don't know why--but they sent it to a local
D.C. court.
That court heard at every single argument Mr. Meadows has raised and
found for the District of Columbia. And that is the definitive word on
the law, unless what he is saying is: Je suis the law, or, I am the
law. Well, maybe you are, but you are the kind of law that led the
Framers to rebel against England. No respect for local law.
You speak of the Diggs Compromise. What you didn't say is that some
compromise had to be reached because the Senate, in its home rule bill,
gave the district control over its local budget.
So what we say, what our lawyers say, is that compromise did leave
some room in the charter--which does not specifically say that budget
autonomy is denied to the District; and they could have said it, but
they didn't--and the compromise was to leave some room at such point as
it became relevant to step up and claim the right to process and
enforce their own local budget.
My good friend managing the bill on that side dares reach back to the
1990s. Yes, the District got into trouble. My congratulations to the
District of Columbia as the only city which, for 200 years, carried
State functions. And yes, in the 1990s, it became too much; and yes,
the city had a serious financial crisis.
So if you want to go back two decades, also come forward, because at
this time, the District has perhaps the strongest economy in the United
States of America. How many of you have surpluses? How many of you have
anything to brag about in terms of the economy of your district?
Have you looked at what is happening in the District of Columbia? You
can see the building going on. You can see the increase in our
population. So yes, we have had hard times, and I am sure you have, but
I am sure that there was a whole lot less reason for your hard times
than for ours.
I am asking you to think about your own principles of local control
and try to justify taking local control from the District, but
particularly to justify taking local control over our own money. That
is what the Framers went to war about. Somebody somewhere was trying to
tell them about taxes having to do with their own local funds.
I don't know if that spirit still lives on that side of the aisle,
but it still lives in the District of Columbia. This is our money. We
are going to keep going at it until you have nothing to say about funds
raised in a jurisdiction not your own. My constituents cannot hold you
accountable because they cannot vote for you.
Well, sir, they have voted for me; and what I say today represents
what they believe and what they will never give up, and that is the
right to control their own local laws and, and above all, their own
local funds raised from their own local taxpayers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.

{time} 1300

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, indeed, the delegate opposite is my friend. She serves
her constituency well. Her impassioned plea on behalf of her
constituents is not only recognized this day, but each and every day in
this body.
This particular debate is not over what is believed to be right or
wrong. It is over the rule of law. Indeed, the argument was made by the
gentleman from Georgia yesterday that this is a matter of law, not on
the merits of what is right or what is wrong from a standpoint of
budget autonomy.
But I would also refer, Mr. Speaker, to the argument that would
suggest that everything is great here in Washington, D.C., in terms of
the budget. If that indeed is the case that is being argued here today,
you can't have it both ways, because the status quo today has been one
that truly has the authority rested and vested here in this esteemed
body.
So to suggest that things are less than perfect, I am not here to do
that. But if indeed everything is turning up roses today, it is the
status quo that has indeed preserved that.
So I would suggest that, as we start to look at this, it is a
fundamental question: Are we going to uphold the rule of law?
The rule of law here is very clear. In fact, the debates back in 1973
talked about that all we wanted was some of the local control over our
local government. And as that debate went on, there was indeed, as my
good friend mentioned, in the Senate the desire to give budget autonomy
to the district.
Yet, as we know from our civics class, it takes both the Senate and
the House and the President to sign it into law. I would say that we
need to continue to support the rule of law.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up two desperately needed pieces of
legislation.
The first would shed light on secret money in politics by requiring
groups to disclose the source of the contributions they are using to
fund their campaign-related activities. The second would provide $600
million in funding to combat the growing opioid epidemic.
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
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a personal privilege
and rise today with a really sad heart and take a moment to mark what
is the end of an era for the Rules Committee family.
This is Miles Lackey's last week as the staff director for the
committee's minority, and we are sad about it indeed. The Rules
Committee is a family, and the loss is personal.
The Rules Committee, in my opinion, has the highest regarded staff of
anybody that is on the Hill. In both the House and Senate, Miles has
proved to be the gold standard for any staff wishing to make a
contribution to the Congress.
He has been a mentor and a colleague to anyone who asked for it. His
counsel will be missed not just for the four of us on the Democratic
side of the Rules Committee, but I think both staff members and all
other Members alike on both sides of the aisle.
Miles is a graduate of the University of North Carolina and of Yale
Divinity School, and he brings a grounded, holistic vision of his work
as a staff member, and the example has been a guiding force.
He has the patience of Job and takes every dramatic turn of events in
stride. From government shutdowns to national emergencies, Miles has
always known exactly what to do.
As the staff director of the Rules Committee or as Senator Dodd's
chief of staff in the Senate, he made incredible contributions to
legislation that has passed out of Congress during his tenure in both
Chambers.
From Dodd-Frank to the Affordable Care Act, it is clear that he
dedicated his career to benefiting the American people with skill,
intellect, and patience.
There is always one more story to tell, one more hug to linger over,
but

[[Page H3110]]

there sure is no good way to say goodbye to a trusted and cherished
adviser, a colleague, and a friend. There is only the deep gratitude
that we feel and the legacy of the excellence that Miles leaves.
Thank you, dear friend, for everything.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, when you serve on the Rules Committee, you
spend a lot of time dealing in acrimony at least here on the floor.
When you serve on the Rules Committee and your job is to get the
business of the House accomplished, when we are not on the House floor,
it isn't acrimony. It may be impassioned. It may be, at times,
divisive.
But it is all focused on a single goal, and that is making sure that
this institution fulfills not just the expectations of our constituents
back home, but the expectations of our framers who established it to
begin with.
Members of Congress come and go, Mr. Speaker, and, inevitably, what
makes a Member of Congress successful is being surrounded by a team of
excellence, a team of excellence back home in terms of bosses and
constituents and a team of excellence here in Washington to help make
sure that all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed and that
the big things get done.
When Miles Lackey leaves this institution, Mr. Speaker, it is going
to be harder to get the big things done. It is going to be harder
because the biggest commodity we have in this town is not a Member pin,
is not a Member representational allowance, is not how much mail goes
out the door.
The most precious commodity in this town is trust, and not everybody
has it. Sadly, not everybody wants it. But to do anything that is worth
doing in this town, it has to be built on a foundation of trust.
If you don't have people like Miles Lackey on the other side of the
aisle--I sit on this side of the aisle. He is physically sitting on
that side of the aisle today not just emotionally, not just
intellectually, but physically. If you don't have folks that you can
trust, you can't begin the conversations about how to make things
happen.
There is no committee that brings more measures to the floor than the
Rules Committee. That doesn't happen by accident. It happens
intentionally. It happens with good folks like Miles Lackey.
There is no committee that has to deal with more contentious issues
than the Rules Committee. The committees of jurisdiction have dealt
with as many as they can. The hardest ones, the worst ones, end up on
the Rules Committee's plate. We don't deal with those issues
successfully without the trust built by folks like Miles Lackey.

Mr. Speaker, we can read the resolution that the Rules Committee put
out for Miles, but it is only a page long. Truthfully, it doesn't do
justice. When you lose folks who have built that trust, it takes years
to find folks to rebuild it.
I want you to look at the folks who come to speak on Miles' behalf
today, Mr. Speaker. I want you to look at the folks who sit in Miles'
chain of command.
He is certainly not leaving the ranking member high and dry. He has
trained a tremendous team of folks who are going to step up and try to
fill those shoes.
I came to this institution to make a difference, Mr. Speaker. I
didn't come just to make a point. Because Miles Lackey has served in
this institution not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, but
for decade upon decade. We have been able to make a difference.
I don't want to date Miles. He dates back not just before I got here,
but before my predecessor got here. He dates back before Republicans
took over this institution, Mr. Speaker, and has seen the control
change time and time again.
Watch folks when power changes, Mr. Speaker. Watch folks when power
changes in this institution. Watch whether they behave the same once
they have it as they did yesterday when they didn't.
We are all in the minority at some point, Mr. Speaker. We are all in
the minority at some point. The rules exist to protect the minority.
Watch the folks who have the ability to use the rules. See if they
treat you the same when they have the power as when they don't.
There is not going to be a man or woman who stands in this Chamber
who will tell you that Miles treats you any differently when he is in
as when he is out.
He is an advocate for his position, but he is an institutionalist who
believes in all of us collectively. I thank him for his service.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Rules
resolution.

Expressing the gratitude of the Committee on Rules to Mr.
Miles M. Lackey, the Committee's Democratic staff director,
for his service to the Committee, the House, and the Nation
on the occasion of his retirement from the House of
Representatives.
Whereas Mr. Miles M. Lackey has served the Nation in both
the legislative and executive branches over the course of
nearly three decades;
Whereas he has served the Committee on Rules for most of
his career, first as an associate of the Rules Committee
staff, then later as senior advisor to the Chair and both
majority and minority staff director;
Whereas during his career, he has brought competence and
dignity to each office he has held;
Whereas his advice and counsel are sought by both Members
and staff alike;
Whereas he has always endeavored to ensure the effective
operation of the Committee, even when the majority and
minority differed on policy or process;
Whereas his good humor and steady demeanor will be missed:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) the Committee on Rules expresses its profound gratitude
to Mr. Miles M. Lackey for his exemplary service; and
(2) the clerk of the Committee is hereby directed to
prepare this resolution in a manner suitable for presentation
to Mr. Lackey.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member
of the Rules Committee for yielding me the time, and I join with her in
expressing my admiration and my respect for Miles Lackey.
I have known Miles for many, many years. We both served as staff
members up here when I first came to the Hill. I have known him in his
capacity when he worked with Tony Beilinson and Ted Weiss and Chris
Dodd and John Edwards in the Rules Committee and I guess a thousand
other things he did up here. I always admired his intellect and his
dedication.
Mr. Speaker, Miles Lackey is a good man. He is a very, very good man.
That is an important quality for people who serve up here, whether as
Members of Congress or as staff members, that they are good people.
Miles always put the interests of the people of this country first,
and always the most vulnerable were at the top of his list. No matter
what we talk about in the Rules Committee, he always talks about how it
is going to impact people who are struggling in this country.
I just want to say that I have admired Miles' dedication to this
country. I have admired his intellect. I have admired his compassion.
We are going to miss him greatly.
He has taught me a lot. I know he has taught a lot of people on the
Rules Committee and other staffers and Members a lot as well. But he is
a unique individual in that everybody loves him.
I joked last night in the Rules Committee that I appreciated the fact
that Miles was the inspiration for a resolution in the Rules Committee
that Democrats and Republicans could support because very rarely do we
have resolutions that we support in a bipartisan way.
So I am grateful to Miles, and I join with everybody here when I say
we are going to miss him.
I will just conclude with this. I have had the privilege of serving
with some great Members of the House and great Members who have served
as staffers up here.
Miles is at the top of that list. He is a great human being and a
great public servant. We are all here, in a bipartisan way, to express
our admiration, our deep affection, and our respect for him. We wish
him well.
And, Miles, we will be calling you often, so be prepared.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time.

[[Page H3111]]

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
the previous question and ``no'' on the rule that joins two unrelated
measures, first, to continue the House majority's overreach into the
District of Columbia's local budgetary affairs; second, to double down
on an outdated energy policy and pursue a partisan path instead of the
bipartisan Senate plan.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in the statement I gave at the
beginning of this hour, just reflecting back on the month of May, a
month where the House of Representatives passed legislation funding our
military bases, funding our veterans, funding energy and water
policies, providing new authorities to combat the growing threat of the
Zika virus, we updated our Nation's chemical laws for the first time in
40 years, we provided help to people in this country facing opiate
addictions, we provided pay and benefits to our military, we provided
the tools to our armed services necessary to keep our citizens safe
from the growing threat of terrorism, it has been a significant month
in the United States House of Representatives. Oftentimes we don't
reflect back on what has been accomplished. So this is a good
opportunity to do that.

{time} 1315

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of two important
bills to update our Nation's energy policies and address the
constitutional deficiencies in recent District of Columbia Council
actions.
I want to thank the many Members of the House on both sides who
contributed to the underlying pieces of legislation, which will be
considered today following the passage of today's rule.
Finally, I do want to join my colleagues--I am probably the most
recent addition to the House Rules Committee, but I certainly have been
there long enough to appreciate the wise counsel and guidance of Miles
Lackey and certainly wish him well in his future endeavors and pray for
his successor.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 744 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. 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.
430) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
provide for additional disclosure requirements for
corporations, labor organizations, and other entities, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committees on House Administration, the
Judiciary, and Ways and Means. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H. R. 430.
Sec 8. Immediately after the disposition of H.R. 430 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.
5189) to address the opioid abuse crisis. 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 among and controlled by the respective chairs
and ranking minority members of the Committees on Energy and
Commerce and 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. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 5189.

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution. . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. BURGESS. 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 239,
nays 176, not voting 18, as follows:

[[Page H3112]]

[Roll No. 239]

YEAS--239

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 (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
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
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
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
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
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
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
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
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--176

Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
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
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
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
Nolan
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
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)

NOT VOTING--18

Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Collins (GA)
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Miller (FL)
Norcross
O'Rourke
Rice (NY)
Rogers (AL)
Sanchez, Loretta
Speier
Takai
Whitfield
Yarmuth

{time} 1336

Mr. POE of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, due to being unavoidably
detained, I missed the following rollcall Vote: No. 239 on May 25,
2016. If present, I would have voted:
Rollcall Vote No. 239--On Ordering the Previous Question, ``aye''
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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 242,
nays 171, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 240]

YEAS--242

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
Costa
Costello (PA)
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
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
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
Meadows
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
Pompeo
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
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
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
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke

NAYS--171

[[Page H3113]]

Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
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
Nolan
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
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)

NOT VOTING--20

Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Cramer
DeGette
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Green, Gene
Hanna
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Johnson (GA)
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pelosi
Peters
Rice (NY)
Sanchez, Loretta
Takai
Yarmuth

{time} 1342

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 against:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted:
Rollcall No. 240, ``nay.''
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chair, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted:
Rollcall No. 240, ``no.''

____________________