[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

     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
     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

[[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.''

                          ____________________