[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 109 (Thursday, July 7, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4497-H4522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017


                             General Leave

  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 
5485, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Byrne). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 794 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5485.
  Will the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ribble) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1439


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5485) making appropriations for financial services and 
general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Ribble (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
July 7, 2016, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 25, 
printed in House Report 114-639, offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Davidson) had been postponed.


                 Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Duffy

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce a new regulatory 
     action for which the aggregate costs of State, local, and 
     tribal government compliance or private sector compliance, as 
     estimated under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532), will be $100,000,000 or more.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that deals with an issue that 
quite often comes up on this floor. It is an issue about regulation and 
overregulation. What this amendment would do is prohibit the 
administration from using any of these funds to implement a rule that 
would cost the economy $100 million more. This is kind of like the 
REINS Act, but the rule doesn't come back for a vote; it is just 
prohibited.
  The reason is there have been so many new rules and regulations that 
our economy is having a hard time keeping up. Just last year alone, 
there were 3,400 new rules--administrative rules, not from Congress, 
but these are from agencies. There were 80,000-plus pages of rules and 
regulations last year alone, and over half a million regulation pages 
over this President's administration.
  This is having a real impact on the American economy. We have 
businesses that are having a more difficult time accessing loans to 
expand their businesses, to grow their innovation, to invest in 
innovation and create good-paying jobs within our communities. We have 
an increased cost of financing business expansions and home financing 
because of the compliance cost of our whole financial sector.
  The costs have increased so much because the rules are now so complex 
and so many that it is trickling down to the business community and to 
our families. It is impacting our economy.
  So I think it is time. At least right now, for a year, in this 
funding bill, let's take a pause. Let's just take a break on all the 
regulation. Let's stop, let's review, and then we can have a discussion 
about how we move forward. But this is a pause on the big regulation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is a surprise to the gentleman that we still have 6 months to go 
in this Congress and in this administration.
  This amendment would limit the administration's ability to propose or 
finalize important rules or regulations.
  The administration issues rules because Congress has conveyed a 
specific responsibility to them. Rather than enact every contingency 
into law, we rely on public comment and technical advice to make sure 
the laws are implemented efficiently.
  Taking a myopic view of our Nation's regulatory practices is nothing 
new for the majority. Time and time again we have seen appropriations 
riders and authorizing legislation that only looks at the costs 
associated with agency rules and completely ignores the associated 
benefits. This amendment is no different.
  These proposals overlook the extensive review process that already 
exists for rules. For example, every new rule is already scrutinized up 
and down by numerous Federal agencies as well as key stakeholders and 
the public. For economically significant rules, an agency must provide 
the Office of Management and Budget with an assessment and, to the 
extent possible, a quantification of the benefits and costs of the 
proposed rule.
  In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the agency has to justify 
the costs associated with the rule, and these costs are justified with 
benefits--something this amendment appears to think don't exist. But 
that is just false. For example, in its 2015 analysis of the estimated 
cost and benefits of significant Federal regulations, OMB estimated 
that, over the last decade, the benefits of these rules outweighed the 
economic costs by up to 9 to 1.
  This amendment would upend years of precedent and could prohibit 
agencies from revising rules and regulations in response to changes in 
technology, the economy, or public demand.
  Republicans should stop trying to undermine the rulemaking process 
and should stop ignoring the real-world benefits of these rules to 
society.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment very strongly, and I urge a 
``nay'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), our chairman.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of this, and thank the gentleman for bringing this 
before the House.
  We have an administration that just loves to regulate. They love to 
regulate. They have rules for everything. They have no regard for the 
cost of the regulations. Small businesses, governments, and States are 
all hard pressed to do all this stuff. The administration tries to 
sidestep us by going through executive orders and Presidential 
memorandums.
  All this amendment does is force the administration to seek 
congressional approval on the most significant of the new regulations.
  It is a great amendment, and I urge all the Members to support it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that my good friend 
across the aisle talks about the great review process that we have by 
Federal agencies. These are the faceless, nameless

[[Page H4498]]

bureaucrats who make rules that have huge impacts on our families, on 
our businesses, and on our economy.
  I don't know about you, but people come to me and say: There is a 
horrible rule. Could you help me out, my Member of Congress? What I do 
is I write a letter.
  We have disenfranchised the American people because we don't make the 
laws anymore. We have outsourced that to the regulators. Let's take 
that power back.
  When we empower the Congress, we empower the American people to have 
a say in their government on the rules that have a huge impact on their 
lives. Let's have the backbone to take tough votes, to say ``yes'' or 
``no'' to these kind of rules. But let's not outsource it to an agency 
that has no relationship with the American people and no accountability 
to the American people.
  This is saying ``no.'' Let's take a stop and let's reempower the 
Congress to have a say, which, again, empowers the American people.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing. I think it could be 
December 31 of this year and we would still be trying to find a way to 
make the President look bad. That is what this is about. It is about 
this President having an administration.
  If it was up to some on the other side, there would be no Federal 
agencies, there would be no Federal employees, they might invent a new 
computer that would run the whole government, and the rest of us would 
just sit around. But be careful, because then somebody would suggest 
that there should not be a Congress.
  This should be left alone. We have agencies. We have secretaries. 
These agencies carry out. And when they don't carry out to our 
understanding, believe me, just look at the appropriations bills. There 
are riders upon riders upon riders to try to undo what is being done, 
which, in many cases, is excellent work. This is just more of the same.
  It may come as a shock to you, but the President is still around for 
6 more months and we are around for 6 more months and those 
administrators are around for 6 more months, so we better learn to get 
along for those 6 months.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Crenshaw of Florida

  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 794, I offer 
amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 27, 48, 53, 56, 
59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, and 69, printed in House Report 
114-639, offered by Mr. Crenshaw of Florida:


           Amendment no. 27 offered by Mr. Duffy of wisconsin

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used with respect to the case Rainey v. Merit Systems 
     Protection Board (United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Federal Circuit; No. 2015-3234, decided on June 7, 2016).


           amendment no. 48 offered by mr. zeldin of new york

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to enforce section 540 of Public Law 110-329 (122 Stat. 
     3688) or section 538 of Public Law 112-74 (125 Stat. 976; 6 
     U.S.C. 190 note).


          amendment no. 53 offered by mr. jeffries of new york

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the relocation of the Office of Disability 
     Adjudication and Review of the Social Security Administration 
     located at 111 Livingston Street in Brooklyn, New York.


           amendment no. 56 offered by mr. grayson of florida

       Page 11, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,250,000)''.


         amendment no. 59 offered by mrs. comstock of virginia

       Page 37, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 92, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 96, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 60 offered by ms. speier of california

       Page 46, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 90, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 61 offered by mr. himes of connecticut

       Page 92, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,784,000)''.
       Page 96, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,784,000)''.
       Page 114, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,784,000)''.


           amendment no. 62 offered by miss Rice of new york

       Page 92, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $800,000)''.
       Page 96, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $800,000)''.
       Page 113, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $800,000)''.


         amendment no. 63 offered by mr. lynch of massachusetts

       Page 6, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,300,000)''.
       Page 92, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,300,000)''.
       Page 96, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,300,000)''.


          amendment no. 64 offered by mr. walberg of michigan

       Page 37, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 92, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 96, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.


          amendment no. 65 offered by mr. connolly of virginia

       Page 40, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 92, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 96, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.


            amendment no. 66 offered by ms. meng of new york

       Page 117, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


           amendment no. 67 offered by mr. engel of new york

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles, for any 
     executive fleet, or for an agency's fleet inventory, except 
     in accordance with Presidential Memorandum-Federal Fleet 
     Performance, dated May 24, 2011.


           amendment no. 69 offered by mr. grayson of florida

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of 
     its principals if the offeror certifies, as required by 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of 
     its principals--
       (1) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has 
     been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it 
     for--
       (A) commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection 
     with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public 
     (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract;
       (B) violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes 
     relating to the submission of offers; or
       (C) commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, 
     falsification or destruction of records, making false 
     statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws, 
     or receiving stolen property;
       (2) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or 
     civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of 
     any of the offenses enumerated above in paragraph (1); or
       (3) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has 
     been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount 
     that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, the majority and the minority have agreed 
to these amendments en bloc. They are noncontroversial amendments that 
affect a variety of topics, such as whistleblower protection, property 
disposal, and reducing drug trafficking.
  Additionally, the sponsors of the amendments have agreed to the 
consideration of these amendments en bloc.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a historic moment, so 
let's pay attention.
  I rise in support of the en bloc amendments. I appreciate the 
chairman's inclusion of amendments for Democratic Members.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the en bloc amendment. I think it is a fine 
example of what we can do every so often.

[[Page H4499]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member.
  I rise to support a bipartisan amendment that I have offered with my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), which helps 
communities combat the opioid and heroin epidemic by increasing funding 
for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program by $2 million.
  Across the country, HIDTA officials are doing important work to curb 
drug trafficking and bring law enforcement and community stakeholders 
together to stem the tide of drugs like heroin and fentanyl. Providing 
these additional resources will allow for even more local partnerships 
to fight drug trafficking.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  I rise to offer my amendment to the Financial Services and General 
Government Appropriations Act to improve the FTC enforcement of the Do 
Not Call Registry list, and to improve public education about FTC-
supported solutions that can block these malicious and annoying 
robocalls.
  Mr. Chair, all of us have suffered the repeated ringing from calls 
from unknown numbers from robocalls.
  It only takes one day sitting at home to realize how invasive 
robocalls have become. This is what our elderly and retired citizens 
have to deal with every single day.
  Robocall scammers steal over $350 million every year from those who 
fall prey to incessant calls. Without proper enforcement and support 
from the FTC, these calls will continue and all of our constituents 
will continue to suffer. This amendment I offer today would increase 
funding for the FTC for the purpose of additional enforcement of the Do 
Not Call Registry and for educating for consumers about their options.
  The relatively small increase in this amendment would result in 6.5 
percent more funds for enforcement. Since 2004, the FTC has brought in 
$41 million in penalties. That's a paltry $3.4 million each year. 
Considering scammers owe the FTC an estimated $1.2 billion in 
penalties, there's a lot more that can be done.
  For the past several years, the FTC has held contests to support the 
development of robocall blocking apps such as Nomorobo and Robokiller. 
However, many people don't know that they are free and are effective 
solutions for some consumers. By allowing the FTC to conduct more 
education and outreach, this amendment would further leverage existing 
FTC investment in this area.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. This amendment would 
provide a significant increase to the FTC's ability to crack down on 
illegal robocalls and provide our constituents some peace for the 
constant robocall ringing.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment which 
would transfer $7 million to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
Program, also known as HIDTA.
  HIDTA coordinates federal, state, and local drug task forces to 
disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking operations.
  So many individuals--and by extension, their families and friends--
are suffering the effects of drug abuse.
  The heroin and opioid epidemic is affecting all of northern Virginia.
  But currently, only part of my district is HIDTA-designated.
  Two counties--Clarke and Frederick--have not yet received a HIDTA 
designation.
  But I will not rest until my constituents in the Shenandoah Valley 
are afforded the same resources to combat this scourge.
  The funding increase proposed by my amendment will ultimately save 
lives.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, those of us in this institution talk a lot 
about how America is a nation of laws.
   But unfortunately, a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals 
ruled that, while we are a nation of laws, we are not a nation of 
rules. At least not if you are a Federal worker.
   My amendment would prohibit the use of funds made available in the 
underlying bill with respect to Rainey v. Merit System Protection 
Board.
   Allow me to explain the case and why it's relevant to the bill 
before us today.
   Dr. Timothy Rainey is a State Department employee who, while serving 
as a contracting officer in 2013, was ordered by his supervisor to 
violate the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
   Dr. Rainey refused, and in doing so he was removed from his duties.
   When Dr. Rainey invoked the ``right-to-disobey'' provision of the 
Whistleblower Protection Act, the Merit Systems Protection Board ruled 
that the law only protects him from refusing to violate Federal laws, 
but not rules or regulations.
   On June 7th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit upheld this ruling.
   So what does this mean, Mr. Speaker?
   I chair the Financial Services Oversight Subcommittee where we 
frequently get valuable tips from Federal whistleblowers about 
questionable and illegal activities at Federal agencies.
   This ruling will have the effect of taking away their protections to 
stand up to bad actors in the Federal workforce.
   Let's not forget that our rules and regulations are supposed to be 
derived from law.
   In effect, this ruling will give permission to political appointees 
and other supervisors in positions of authority to force Federal works 
to violate the rules and regulations that Congress, through law, 
directs the agencies to implement.
   At the Treasury Department, one of the many agencies funded by this 
bill, this would mean that Federal workers could be forced to violate 
sanctions against Russia for its violation of Ukraine's territorial 
integrity.
   Many of those sanctions are enforced through the Code of Federal 
Regulations pursuant to laws enacted by Congress.
   Ultimately, Congress will need to fix the Whistleblower Protection 
Act.
   I intend to work in a bipartisan fashion and with the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform to fix the Whistleblower Protection Act 
to address this ruling.
   In the meantime, I ask adoption of my amendment to put the House on 
record that Federal workers should follows laws and rules and 
regulations.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Crenshaw and 
Ranking Member Serrano for including my amendment into the en bloc 
amendment to H.R. 5485, the FY2017 Financial Services Appropriations 
Act.
  I offered this amendment to increase the funding provided to the 
Treasury Department's Office of Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 
(FinCEN) by $3,300,000. By sharing financial intelligence with law 
enforcement, private industry, and its foreign counterparts, FinCEN 
supports financial crime investigations throughout the world. 
Terrorists' proven ability to move money through innovative means 
necessitates continued progress in this critical counterterrorism area. 
The $3,300,000 is needed to enhance FinCEN's supervisory strategy of 
Money Services Businesses and to meet the growing demand for FinCEN's 
expanded national security response efforts.
  The amendment would offset this necessary increase through 
corresponding decreases in the funding provided for the ``Rental of 
Space'' account within the General Services Administration.
  Through my work as Ranking Member of the Financial Services 
Committee's Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing and the Co-
Chair of the bipartisan Task Force on Anti-Terrorism & Proliferation 
Financing, I witnessed the vital work that FinCEN engages in to 
safeguard our financial system from evolving money laundering and 
national security threats. By analyzing financial intelligence and 
sharing it with law enforcement, private industry, and its foreign 
counterparts, FinCEN supports financial crime investigations throughout 
the world.
  At this time, FinCEN needs additional funding to enhance its 
supervisory strategy of Money Services Businesses (MSBs) and to 
establish a specialized response team to focus on high priority 
threats. This is important because banks are increasingly derisking by 
exiting the MSB market due to the high risks associated with MSB 
customers. For example, this is making it nearly impossible for 
families, charities, and businesses to send remittances to people in 
Somalia. A specialized response team will encourage banks to more 
consistently service the financial needs of the MSB market that is seen 
as higher risk.
  In addition, FinCEN could use these additional funds to meet the 
growing demand for its expanded national security response efforts. 
FinCEN continues to support the broader Department of Treasury efforts 
by identifying sources of revenue for organizations such as Islamic 
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and their attempts to access the 
international financial system. However, without adequate funding 
FinCEN will be unable to meet the demand for expanded intelligence 
reporting and increased investigations into terrorism finance.
  As evidenced by recent support to the Paris and Belgium terrorists 
attack investigations, FinCEN's expertise assisted in quickly 
identifying links between the two attacks. FinCEN

[[Page H4500]]

published 51 reports related to the Paris attacks and 2 reports related 
to the Brussels attack Many of these reports were generated through 
engagement with financial institutions by FinCEN, which resulted in 
increased reports from U.S. financial institutions. Moreover, FinCEN's 
financial intelligence has played an important role in identifying 
potential foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs).
  With today's increasingly complex and rapidly evolving terrorist 
networks, we cannot risk our national security by not adequately 
funding this important Department.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 7, 2016, on page H4500, the following appeared: The 
amendments en bloc were agreed . . .
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The en bloc 
amendments were agreed


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



                Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Garrett

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Securities and Exchange Commission to propose, 
     issue, implement, administer, or enforce any requirement that 
     a solicitation of a proxy, consent, or authorization to vote 
     a security of an issuer in an election of members of the 
     board of directors of the issuer be made using a single 
     ballot or card that lists both individuals nominated by (or 
     on behalf of) the issuer and individuals nominated by (or on 
     behalf of) other proponents and permits the person granting 
     the proxy, consent, or authorization to select from among 
     individuals in both groups.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on an amendment that would 
prohibit special interests from having their agendas advanced by 
Washington bureaucrats, and to refocus the Securities and Exchange 
Commission on its important threefold policy mission: to protect 
investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and to 
facilitate capital formation.
  Strong and efficient communication between the boards and management 
of public companies and their shareholders is foundational to healthy 
capital markets and to maintaining the ability of companies to innovate 
and to create jobs for everyone.
  Fortunately, recent studies have shown that communication between the 
investors and the companies has actually improved over recent years, 
and shareholders are now increasingly able to effectuate change without 
all of the drastic measures, such as launching a proxy fight.
  In fact, according to a 2015 report from Ernst & Young, the number of 
companies disclosing engagement on government topics rose from a mere 6 
percent of the S&P 500 companies all the way up to 50 percent in 2015. 
In many ways, this is a private market at work as investors demand that 
boards and management be more responsive to their request for how to 
improve the company and their long-term performance.
  A number of regulatory hurdles still need to be overcome to improve 
the U.S. proxy system, which remains one of the primary ways in which 
public companies communicate between the two. Back in 2010, the SEC put 
forth a number of ideas, the so-called ``Proxy Plumbing'' concept 
release, which explored various ways to improve the transparency, if 
you will, of corporate government systems here in the United States.
  Importantly, the Proxy Plumbing concept release also discussed at 
length the importance of getting retail investors more involved in the 
process. For a variety of reasons, retail investors have for years been 
disenfranchised by the current proxy system, and they rarely exercise 
the rights of shareholders to engage in improving the way that the 
companies work.
  Unfortunately, for nearly 6 years, the SEC has, and maybe not 
surprisingly, allowed this Proxy Plumbing concept release to languish 
and has chosen not to act on it, even on some of the most basic and 
noncontroversial parts of it.
  But then last year, out of the blue, SEC Chair Mary Jo White had 
directed the SEC staff to develop a rulemaking for what is known as 
``universal proxy ballots.''
  You ask: What are universal proxy ballots? Good question. Put simply, 
while they sound quite benign, actually, universal proxy ballots are a 
means for special interest groups to easily then nominate their 
preferred candidates to a company's board, and that would fundamentally 
change things. It would fundamentally change the way in which public 
company directors are elected here in the U.S.
  This is an initiative that has been pushed for years by insiders and 
special interests. It has also been pushed by a number of activist 
pension funds, many of which have been horribly managed themselves and 
now find themselves with unfunded liabilities that threaten the 
retirement security of the public sector workers over which they were 
responsible.
  The adoption of the universal proxy rule would only increase the 
likelihood of high profile proxy fights at public companies, which 
would then serve to distract the employees and management of these 
companies from carrying out their core mission.
  More importantly, it would make the vast majority of public company 
shareholders, including the smaller retail investor, pay the price for 
the costs associated with these big fights.
  Finally, it is unfair to those investors who do not wish to carry the 
water for these special interests.
  Aside from these specific policy concerns, there are also issues of 
how the SEC has been prioritizing its finite resources. The SEC 
recently missed the rulemaking deadline for yet again another 
congressional mandate to simplify and modernize our current corporate 
disclosure regime.
  This is an initiative that has bipartisan support and would help 
boost confidence by making quarterly and annual reports more effective 
for the small investor by reducing some of the unnecessary and the not 
material disclosures within them.
  Unfortunately, once again, the SEC chose to ignore what Congress 
mandated and, instead, prioritized rulemakings over such things as that 
universal proxy I mentioned, which, again, would benefit simply a 
minority of insider special interests over the vast majority of public 
company shareholders.
  This rulemaking should be nowhere on the SEC's agenda. My amendment 
would simply disallow the SEC from using its finite resources.
  I urge all of my colleagues' support.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
bringing the amendment before us. This is a very good amendment. It 
keeps the SEC on track, it gets them focused on their core dual 
mission--investor protection and capital formation.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said it more succinctly than 
I did in the last 4 minutes, and I thank him.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has 
expired.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to hear the other side 
protecting the right of the SEC to do its work when the budget and the 
bill show just the opposite.
  This amendment is yet another attack on the independence and efficacy 
of the Securities and Exchange Commission. It also represents an attack 
on shareholders.
  When special interests cannot win ballot questions put to their 
shareholders, they seek protection from Congress to change the rules of 
the game.
  Specifically, this amendment would prohibit the SEC from proposing, 
implementing, or enforcing any regulatory action on the issue of 
universal proxy ballots. These universal proxy ballots would let 
shareholders vote for whomever they wish to represent them on the 
corporate boards. This is a vital consideration in proxy contests since

[[Page H4501]]

board seats and, in some cases, board control are at stake. It would 
also make for a fairer, less cumbersome voting process.
  Right now, there is a two-tiered system governing shareholder 
elections. Shareholders in attendance at meetings, particularly in 
proxy contests, have the ability to receive a legal ballot that allows 
them to pick and choose among all of the candidates who are duly 
nominated.

                              {time}  1500

  Shareholders who are not in attendance do not have that ability and, 
typically, can only choose from among nominees who appear on 
management's or a dissident's ballot, but not both. This limits 
shareholders' choice.
  Many advocates and investors, including the Council of Institutional 
Investors, have written to the SEC and have asked them to address this 
issue. Indeed, the CII filed a rulemaking petition to this effect. 
Likewise, the SEC Investor Advisory Committee, which is the group of 
outside experts tasked with the responsibility under Dodd-Frank to 
advise the SEC on issues of investor protection, called upon the SEC to 
take action on this issue.
  Corporate governance is only effective when boards are elected in a 
free and fair manner. The SEC should take steps to eliminate 
disenfranchisement in proxy contests in cases where shareholders have 
no ability to ``split their ticket'' and vote for a combination of 
shareholder and management nominees.
  This amendment would curtail the SEC's existing authority in this 
regard, to the detriment of shareholders and corporate accountability.
  I urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Garrett

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to--
       (1) designate any nonbank financial company as ``too big to 
     fail'';
       (2) designate any nonbank financial company as a 
     ``systemically important financial institution''; or
       (3) make a determination that material financial distress 
     at a nonbank financial company, or the nature, scope, size, 
     scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the 
     activities of such company, could pose a threat to the 
     financial stability of the United States.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I rise to prevent government regulators from 
expanding the corrupt doctrine of ``too big to fail'' into even greater 
parts of our economy.
  Under Dodd-Frank, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, FSOC, 
has the power now to designate companies as systemically important 
financial institutions, SIFIs. I have heard it said that the SIFI 
status does not necessarily mean ``too big to fail,'' but that is a 
ridiculous claim that is on par with the reassurances that there was no 
implicit guarantee with Fannie and Freddie. In the real world, the 
Federal Government will never allow a SIFI to fail. The SIFI 
designation is nothing less than the government's stamp of approval and 
the enshrining of taxpayer bailouts. Simply put, a SIFI designation is 
the guarantee that the taxpayers will, once again, be on the hook for 
the bailouts of Wall Street.
  First, megabanks were designated as ``too big to fail.'' Now FSOC is 
claiming that nonbank firms, such as insurance companies and asset 
managers, should also be designated as SIFIs. FSOC's words and actions 
belie its true purpose, which is to grow its regulation of the economy 
so that every sector of the financial industry is propped up on the 
backs of taxpayers.
  I am offering this amendment to prevent the Secretary of the Treasury 
and the Chairman of the SEC, who are both voting members of FSOC, from 
designating any additional nonbank companies as SIFIs. When companies 
become SIFIs, they cease to operate in the free market. Instead, they 
operate under a new system--a system that protects entities by sparing 
them from the costs and the consequences that other regular companies 
face in a competitive market. So, over time, the combination of this 
protected status and the Fed's risk-averse regulation will zap the 
energy and competitiveness of this company. Simply put, the government 
will corrupt the private sector, which, in turn, will corrupt the 
government.
  ``Too big to fail'' must not take root in the nonbank financial 
sector. These companies serve as an important counterbalance to the 
megabanks. You see, Dodd-Frank was built on a foundation of sand--a 
foundation that mistakenly views the financial crisis as having been 
caused exclusively by the greed of large financial institutions and 
that intrusive government regulation would have prevented the crisis by 
keeping them from making risky investments. So it should come as no 
surprise that, instead of solving the problem, Dodd-Frank gave ``too 
big to fail'' the force of the law. FSOC is not working as intended 
because it is unworkable.
  Finally, even with its absolute and unaccountable powers, its faulty 
premise dooms FSOC to failure. We must prevent FSOC from continuing to 
dig a deeper hole in free market capitalism and get Wall Street off the 
backs and out of the pockets of the American taxpayers.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment 
before us, and I urge everyone to support it.
  Mr. Chair, FSOC is there to mitigate risk, not to just go around 
looking for people to designate. In our underlying bill, we say that, 
before you can designate a nonbank, you have to give it the right to 
cure whatever the problem is. This takes it one step further in asking: 
Why do we designate nonbanks as significantly important financial 
institutions?
  We ought to focus on where the focus ought to be and just leave the 
nonbanks out of this.
  I urge the support of this amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT. Once again, the chairman said it more succinctly than I. 
I urge all Members to support the legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, we finally found something we agree on again. 
This is becoming a habit. We want to keep Wall Street in its place. I 
wish the gentleman would help us with empowering the SEC to do so.
  Dodd-Frank does not designate any entity as ``too big to fail,'' as 
the Garrett amendment suggests. Instead, Dodd-Frank provides regulators 
with the tools to address the risks posed by large, complex, and 
interconnected financial institutions--both banks and nonbanks alike. 
This is crucial in addressing one of the main regulatory gaps we 
witnessed leading up to the 2008 crisis. Too many nonbanks were in the 
shadows, having had escaped critical regulation that could have 
prevented the crisis.
  For example, regulators have already designed AIG as a nonbank 
systemically important financial institution, a SIFI. Recall that the 
London arm of AIG's was speculating in derivative products, such as 
credit default swaps, leading up to the 2008 crisis. By the fall of 
2007, AIG Financial Products had already begun a tailspin that helped

[[Page H4502]]

spark the worst financial crisis in the U.S. since the Great 
Depression. By May 2009, various programs of support from the Federal 
Reserve and the Treasury amounted to more than $180 billion in bailouts 
to the company.
  Other nonbank broker dealers, like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, 
were at the center of the creation of toxic assets, which were central 
to the crisis and necessitated the need for a Wall Street bailout. The 
Garrett amendment would stop our banking regulators from subjecting the 
next Lehman Brothers from heightened regulation. Hedge funds were also 
key intermediaries in the distribution and structuring of toxic assets. 
Again, the Garrett amendment would stop our banking regulators from 
providing the heightened regulation of their operations.
  The Garrett amendment is an attempt to roll back the critical rules 
of the road we have passed in the wake of the greatest financial crisis 
since the Great Depression. Large financial institutions are fighting 
the SIFI designation because they know that being identified as one 
means being subjected to regulation that is above and beyond current 
requirements, including ``living wills,'' which will help regulators 
plan how to wind down the firms in an orderly fashion in the event they 
become insolvent. The heightened regulation also includes the ability 
for regulators to ``stress test'' the entity to see if it can withstand 
financial distress, demand more capital, or to demand more stringent 
reporting.
  Former FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, a Republican appointee, noted in 
congressional testimony after the passage of Dodd-Frank: ``Many 
institutions are vigorously lobbying against such a designation,'' and 
``being designated a SIFI will in no way confer a competitive advantage 
by anointing an institution as `too big to fail.' ''
  The capacity to designate nonbanks as SIFIs is critical to the U.S. 
financial system for appropriate regulatory oversight. The designation 
process already has in place multiple procedural safeguards and 
opportunities for appeal via a lengthy process. Therefore, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Garrett amendment as it does much more harm 
than we would think.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, the harm that has occurred is from the Dodd-
Frank legislation, and the harm that has occurred by the FSOC 
designations is twofold.
  One, the large one, is the fact that it has given a regulator the 
ability to put financial institutions and non-financial institutions 
and their problems on the backs of the American taxpayers, meaning that 
you and I and everybody who is listening to us may someday have to 
reach into their pockets and bail out, once again, Wall Street for its 
bad decisions. That should end now.
  Two, the even larger issue, is the failure of Dodd-Frank. In the 
legislation here, we are trying to fix the fact that it has had a 
debilitating effect on the overall economy. It has created 
disincentives in the marketplace, which is bad for the economy, and it 
is why we are having such a slow growth in the GDP, which translates 
into less job growth, fewer jobs for the American public, and fewer 
jobs for your neighbor and my neighbor as well. We need this 
legislation to fix it.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, the other side doesn't like ObamaCare; it 
doesn't like Dodd-Frank; it doesn't like the SEC. Maybe I am going to 
try an amendment on the bailout of the automobile industry to see if 
they like that one, because that helped a lot of folks.
  This amendment is misguided. The gentleman is a good man who honestly 
believes in what he is saying and in what he is doing, but it is only 
going to hamper the SEC's ability to do its work. We do that enough in 
this bill, so it should be left alone. I urge a vote against the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay a performance award under section 5384 of 
     title 5, United States Code, to any career appointee within 
     the Senior Executive Service.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer a commonsense amendment with 
the intent of prohibiting the use of funds in this act to pay a 
performance award to any senior executive employee within the IRS.
  Under the direction of Commissioner John Koskinen, IRS officials have 
led a coordinated effort to hide the truth about this IRS' targeting of 
innocent Americans based on their political beliefs. Rather than 
cleaning up this rogue agency, Koskinen has doubled down on the 
agency's lawlessness and political culture.
  On Koskinen's watch, the IRS intentionally destroyed nearly 24,000 
emails from Lois Lerner and failed to comply with a congressional 
subpoena. To make matters worse, Commissioner Koskinen made a series of 
false and misleading statements under oath to Congress at multiple 
committee hearings on this matter.
  Koskinen said in March of 2014 that the IRS had turned over all of 
Lerner's emails and all requested information; yet the Treasury 
Inspector General for Tax Administration uncovered more than 1,000 
emails that the IRS tried to hide.

                              {time}  1515

  The recent transgressions perpetrated by this agency are not only 
disgraceful, they border on corrupt. The trust Americans once had has 
been utterly destroyed.
  In July 2013, Danny Werfel, Acting Commissioner of the IRS, sought to 
eliminate bonuses for union employees and senior executives within the 
agency, sending an email to employees which stated: ``I do not believe 
there should be performance awards this year for IRS employees, 
managers, or executives.''
  Unfortunately, Koskinen chose to ignore Werfel's attempts to restore 
trust within the agency. In February of 2014, Koskinen announced his 
decision to pay out bonuses to senior IRS bureaucrats in order to 
improve ``employee morale.''
  In April 2014, the Treasury inspector general reported that more than 
1,100 IRS employees with delinquent tax returns received bonuses of 
more than a million dollars. That same investigation found: ``2,800 IRS 
employees facing disciplinary actions received more than $2.8 million 
in monetary bonuses.''
  The Office of Personnel Management reported that in fiscal year 2014 
alone, 61.5 percent of all senior executives within the Treasury 
Department received performance awards.
  Lawlessness within this agency should not be rewarded. This amendment 
seeks to effectuate a policy of accountability and change the corrupt 
culture of this agency by prohibiting bonuses and performance awards 
for Senior Executives Service employees within the IRS.
  It is unconscionable that Lois Lerner and other dishonest senior 
officials

[[Page H4503]]

within the IRS have received more than $100,000 in bonuses in recent 
years. Committing perjury, purposely disposing of hard drives and more 
than 2,400 emails in order to stymie an investigation, and providing an 
extremely poor level of service to taxpayers doesn't warrant a bonus of 
even a penny, in my mind.
  Fifty-seven Democrats joined every single Republican in seeking to 
prevent senior bureaucrats within the IRS from collecting these lavish 
bonuses in the fiscal year 2015 by voting in favor of my amendment that 
passed the House with strong bipartisan support.
  The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste supports this 
amendment and FreedomWorks is key voting in favor of this amendment.
  Once the IRS can prove that it will hold rogue employees accountable 
for their ineptitude, I will cease my efforts to prohibit these awards.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued 
work on the committee.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I am going to start backwards here.
  We are not going to call for a vote on this, and the reason for it 
is, when people read your amendment, they are going to realize someone 
didn't write it correctly. It doesn't speak to the IRS. It actually 
allows for this cut to be across the board on the whole bill, which 
should make our chairman not very happy, and I am interested in my 
chairman's happiness.
  I rise to oppose the amendment. This amendment would prevent agencies 
under this bill from giving employees in the Senior Executive Service 
bonuses. This seems to be aimed at the IRS since the summary on the 
Rules Committee Web site emphasizes the IRS, but it would have the same 
effect across the board.
  No one is saying that poor performance should be rewarded, but this 
takes one class of employees and punishes all of them regardless of 
their individual merits. It will cause us to lose good employees, which 
is not what we need.
  I realize Members on the other side of the aisle are eager to get 
their kicks in against the IRS--they even put them in bills when they 
are not the only ones in the bill--but I argue that this amendment 
would have unintended consequences.
  Rather than somehow making the IRS or any other agency better, this 
is likely to make it worse. This amendment is going to simply ensure 
that we have less accomplished employees at the IRS and at other 
government agencies. It would have a negative effect on recruitment and 
retention of highly talented senior executives necessary to ensure tax 
administration and other agency duties. It may also conflict with 
statutory requirements for SES bonuses that are designed to award 
strong performance.
  I oppose the amendment. It is not well targeted or well thought out.
  I think we also should know that this is the one agency that has been 
reduced in its employee number by the largest in the last few years, so 
I really don't understand what this is trying to accomplish.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, let me now ask the gentleman from New York a 
question.
  I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) to 
respond.
  If you disagree with my amendment and feel that it will have 
unintended consequences, name the agencies in the bill that you think 
should be allowed to dole out lavish bonuses to their senior 
executives.
  Mr. SERRANO. I think that if an-- Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I am asking 
the gentleman: Name me an agency here that should not be doling out--
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, with all due respect, and I am not answering 
the gentleman's question, my role is not to tell you what you should 
have put in the bill.
  Mr. GOSAR. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman from New York can't 
give an answer--
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I am telling the gentleman from Arizona what 
he didn't write.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, reclaiming my time, I think most hardworking 
Americans would agree that the senior bureaucrats with the Customer 
Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and 
the Federal Communications Commission should not be receiving lavish 
bonuses when we are $19 trillion in the hole.
  As I mentioned at the outset, the intent of this amendment is to 
prohibit the use of funds in this act to pay a performance award to any 
senior executive employee within the IRS. When the staff realized the 
actual language in the amendment could be more far reaching than 
intended, we attempted to work with the committee to correct this 
occurrence.
  One thing that this House agrees on is that senior executives within 
IRS should not be collecting bonuses, and this amendment prohibits 
exactly that occurrence.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I will be brief.
  I don't want to read into the gentleman from Arizona's statement, 
sir, that you were trying to get the chairman not to notice that you 
were writing the amendment that he dislikes the most across the board--
that we both dislike the most. I just think, you know, what you are 
talking about is something that, in many cases, has to be looked at. 
Also, in order to keep good employees, you have to find ways to reward 
them.
  This agency, through the hits it takes, has lost--the one you intend, 
according to your comments, the IRS--has lost 18,000 employees in a 
couple of years since 2010, I believe, 18,000 employees. Now we go 
further here.
  Secondly, I am glad to see that you spoke about other agencies, which 
means you must have read the amendment a little closer. But I still 
think it is not a good amendment. I still think it should be defeated.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. The Members on both sides are reminded to direct 
their remarks directly to the Chair and not to each other.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today to offer a commonsense amendment. The Gosar-Bridenstine-
Duncan-Gohmert-Huelskamp-Jones-Barletta-Brat-Brooks-Black amendment 
prohibits funds within this act from being used in contravention of 
Federal immigration law for sanctuary city policies.
  The concept of sanctuary city policies is in direct opposition to the 
rule of law and our Constitution. Article I, section 8, clause 4 gives 
Congress clear jurisdiction on immigration matters.
  A nation of laws must enforce established law, not seek ways to skirt 
around it. Sanctuary cities defy Federal immigration statutes by 
harboring untold numbers of illegal immigrants and providing safe 
havens for criminals, many of whom are violent offenders.
  Our amendment prohibits the use of funds which are appropriated by 
this act from being used in contravention of

[[Page H4504]]

section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996. This Federal law prohibits sanctuary 
policies that prevent or obstruct government and law enforcement 
officials from sharing information regarding a person's immigration 
status with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  Despite being the law of the land, more than 200 State and municipal 
jurisdictions across the country have established policies that 
directly violate the law and shield criminal illegal aliens from 
enforcement. The shocking case of Kate Steinle in San Francisco in 2015 
revealed the danger sanctuary cities pose to our Republic.
  Just over a year ago, on July 1, 2015, Steinle was shot and killed by 
Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who had been 
deported five times. San Francisco authorities were asked to detain 
Sanchez until he could be turned over to Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement officials. The city declined and held Sanchez in jail for 
less than a month on a 20-year-old drug charge before releasing him on 
April 15, 2015, less that 2 months before he killed Steinle.
  Sadly, Kate's tragic murder is not alone. Between 2010 and 2014, 
criminal aliens who were released by DHS went on to commit 124 
homicide-related offenses across the country.
  Let's not forget the many others who have been killed by criminal 
aliens: Jerry Braswell, Sr., and Jerry Braswell, Jr., of North 
Carolina; Dani Countryman of Oregon; Chandra Levy of Washington, D.C.; 
the Gonzalez family of Texas; Kevin Will of Texas; Christopher 
``Buddy'' Rowe of California; Jamiel Shaw of California; Alvert John 
Mike of Utah; and Grant Ronnebeck of Arizona and countless others.
  These brutal murders have called attention to the dangers sanctuary 
city policies pose to the safety and security of the American people. 
The Federation for American Immigration Reform supports this amendment 
stating: ``Gosar amendment 31 addresses a critical public safety 
problem and sends a clear message to sanctuary city jurisdictions that 
their dangerous policies are unacceptable.''
  NumbersUSA is key voting in support of this amendment and has stated: 
``The Gosar Amendment is a targeted approach to sanctuary policies.''
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Gosar 
amendment to cut off the funding to sanctuary cities through the 
financial appropriations bill.
  When I came to Congress in 2011, I quickly cosponsored the Enforce 
the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, and I have worked to hold these 
governments accountable ever since. Here is why.
  We all know that, for years now, Congress has ceded more and more 
power to the executive branch. But less talked about is the fact that, 
for just as long, Congress has allowed more than 200 State and 
municipal jurisdictions to do the same exact thing. And this is just 
plain wrong. Sanctuary cities thumb their nose at Congress; they ignore 
Federal law; and they endanger the lives of their citizens.
  While I urge passage of this amendment, I also believe that we must 
act by passing my bill, the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, which 
takes a broad-based approach to defunding sanctuary city policies once 
and for all.
  I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for his leadership on 
this issue. I support his amendment.
  Mr. GOSAR. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, this is one of those moments where you 
realize that an amendment is put forth not to deal with an issue but, 
rather, to put it on the floor so you can discuss it.
  First of all, this is not the place to discuss immigration policy. 
And I can tell you that we would both agree that our immigration 
policy, our program, is broken and it has to be fixed.
  Here is the problem, one that I have been arguing for years, and a 
lot of other people have been doing the same thing for years and 
lately, and that is that law enforcement officials, for the most part, 
will tell you that, regardless of whether we deal with the immigration 
issue or not, they need to speak to the local people and get 
information so they can do their job.
  If they are seen as agents of the immigration department, if you 
will, the people won't speak to them who are here undocumented. They 
won't speak to them. So they are faced with a very difficult situation. 
They are saying: You guys and ladies are supposed to handle immigration 
reform. Do it. Take care of it. Do it in the way you want. Take care of 
that. But in the meantime, let me do my job.
  So a guy steals a car, and three people in the neighborhood know who 
stole it. They go up. If they think that that police officer is also 
enforcing immigration policy, they are not going to talk to him. That 
is just a fact of life.
  So you may think you are doing a great thing, but you are actually 
hurting law enforcement in the job that it has to do. What we need to 
do is have an immigration policy that speaks about all the issues that 
are covered by immigration policy.
  Secondly, we hear from the other side about local control, local 
control, local control. Well, some cities have decided that they are 
sanctuary cities, that they are going to deal with the immigration 
issue differently than other people deal in other places--less mean, 
less aggressive and being nasty, more understanding of a problem rather 
than just saying that people come here to rip us off.
  We have to keep all those things in mind as we look at this 
amendment, and this amendment should be defeated.

                              {time}  1530

  Lastly, your amendment talks about cutting funds, and the gentlewoman 
talked about cutting funds. To our knowledge, there is nothing in here 
that funds anything having to do with sanctuary cities or, for that 
matter, having to do with immigration. So wrong bill, wrong place, 
wrong time, wrong idea.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Guinta

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to 
     implement, administer, or enforce any guidance with respect 
     to indirect auto lending.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GUINTA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in March of 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau issued flawed and inaccurate guidance that would threaten to 
eliminate auto dealers' flexibility to discount the interest rate 
offered to consumers financing vehicle purchases.
  Whether a person seeks to buy an automobile, an RV, or a motorcycle, 
consumers rely heavily on their neighborhood auto dealer to provide 
them the best possible rate. However, this faulty and unstudied 
guidance could increase the cost for consumers, ultimately making it 
more difficult to obtain an automobile.
  Roughly 6 months ago, my good friend across the aisle, Mr. 
Perlmutter, and I, introduced H.R. 1737, which passed the House with an 
overwhelming bipartisan and veto-proof vote, 332-96. My bill, along 
with 13 bipartisan letters sent by Congress over

[[Page H4505]]

the last 3 years, gave the CFPB a chance to fix the faulty guidance and 
reissue it, but, unfortunately, they still insist on an anticonsumer 
policy and chose to keep their faulty bulletin in place.
  In fact, the CFPB has refused to change course even with a solution 
modeled on the Department of Justice consent order that is supported by 
auto dealers and lenders and do not resort to eliminating dealer 
discounts. Congress has given the CFPB an opportunity to correct and 
reissue their guidance, and that would take into account consumers and 
bring clarity to the market.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment will leave no doubt that either the CFPB 
will fix this problem they created or Congress will, and if we do it, 
we will do it in a bipartisan way.
  I would like to thank Chairman Crenshaw and Chairman Hensarling of 
the Committee on Financial Services for their support. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for 
bringing this before the body.
  Here is another example of the CFPB overregulating, trying to find a 
solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I support this amendment, and 
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the CFPB from implementing, 
administering, or enforcing any guidance related to indirect auto 
lending. This is meant as a shot across the bow to the CFPB, telling 
them not to bring fair lending cases against indirect automobile 
finance companies. But on a practical level, the amendment will only 
invite confusion into the industry.
  After all, this amendment does nothing to address lenders' 
obligations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Instead, the 
amendment only strikes guidance the CFPB has provided to those lenders, 
providing clarity on how they can meet their obligations under the law.
  Discrimination in any finance market is unacceptable, and we know 
that discrimination is still alive and well in the indirect auto 
lending marketplace. In the three settlements to date against Ally 
Financial, Fifth Third Bank, Honda and Toyota Motor Credit, the CFPB 
secured nearly $162 million in borrower relief and penalties, finding 
that minority borrowers paid more than $200 over the life of a car loan 
than White borrowers, even when controlling for borrowers' 
creditworthiness.
  Discretionary markups are the source of discrimination in auto 
lending, and the guidance that this amendment nullifies helps lenders 
monitor and respond to potentially discriminatory auto lending 
practices. It is something that we should not be allowing, and this 
amendment tries to undo a lot of work that we are doing and a lot of 
work that should be done in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that there is no 
place for discrimination. Based on information from the CFPB, CBO 
expects that the agency would not prepare a replacement bulletin if 
H.R. 1737 were enacted. That is because the bill would not affect the 
underlying statute or regulations to implement it. The Bureau can 
continue to enforce the Equal Credit Opportunity Act without the 
bulletin. I also remind the gentleman that the minority report also 
stated that this would not negatively impact the Equal Credit 
Opportunity Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Maxine Waters).
  Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California. I thank Mr. Serrano for yielding.
  You just described this as a shot across the bow to the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau, and you are absolutely right. They are 
attempting to tell them not to bring fair lending cases against 
indirect automobile finance companies.
  This amendment is about protecting wrongdoers who gouge racial and 
ethnic minorities with high markups on car loans even when their 
income, their credit scores, and their financial backgrounds are the 
same as Whites. The amendment is about protecting companies like Ally 
Financial, Fifth Third Bank, Honda and Toyota Motor Credit, all of whom 
have had to enter into settlements with the Bureau over their indirect 
auto loan practices.
  All told, the CFPB, again, has secured nearly $162 million in 
borrower relief and penalties to help these borrowers. In their 
investigations, the Bureau found that minority borrowers paid more than 
$200 over the life of a car loan than White borrowers, even when 
controlling for borrowers' creditworthiness.
  Studies have shown that minority borrowers are less likely to be 
aware of interest rate markups. According to the Center for Responsible 
Lending, 68 percent of all borrowers were unaware that dealers have the 
ability to mark up an interest rate above what a lender offers based on 
their creditworthiness and the car being sold, but nearly 75 percent of 
African American and Hispanic borrowers are unaware that the practice 
of dealer markups even exists.
  The guidance that this amendment seeks to nullify clearly outlines 
steps that lenders can take to protect borrowers from potentially 
discriminatory lending practices that often occur without the borrower 
even being aware of it occurring. So we know what the intent of this 
amendment is, but on a practical level, the amendment will only invite 
confusion into the industry.
  After all, this amendment does nothing to address lenders' 
obligations under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Instead, the 
amendment only strikes guidance the CFPB has provided to those lenders 
providing clarity on how they can meet their obligations under the law. 
The issue has come up before in this Congress, but no matter where you 
stood on H.R. 1737, a bill we considered last year, you should be 
against this amendment.

  To the Members on the opposite side of the aisle, you are supposed to 
have a poverty agenda, and you claim that you are taking on a new 
direction, that you want to have reduced poverty and deal with the 
problems of minorities and people in rural communities, et cetera.
  This is what keeps poverty in these communities. We have these blue 
suede, slick dealers of all kinds--whether they are automobile lenders 
or payday loans or auto loans, all of this stuff--coming into these 
communities, taking advantage of the most vulnerable people who want to 
get out of poverty.
  You say you want to help, but then you come in and you attack the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You hate the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau. You want to do everything to undermine their 
authority.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Members on both sides are reminded to direct their 
remarks to the Chair and not each other.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau's guidance was issued without 
public notice or comment and without any study of its impact on 
consumers or small businesses.
  I want to thank the ranking member for authoring the minority report 
that states: ``H.R. 1737 does not alter regulated entities' obligations 
under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or the CFPB's examination or 
enforcement activity pursuant to ECOA.'' This is nothing more than a 
continuation of H.R. 1737.
  I also want to repeat my thanks to my colleague on the other side of 
the aisle, Mr. Perlmutter, for helping me with a successful 332-96 vote 
in favor of that bill. This amendment is almost identical to it, and I 
would appreciate the ongoing support on behalf of consumers not just in 
New Hampshire, but all across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I would again thank the chair, Mr. Crenshaw, as well as 
Mr. Hensarling, those Members who voted in favor, 332-96, on H.R. 1737. 
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.

[[Page H4506]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Hampshire will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Hudson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to propose or finalize a regulatory action until 
     January 21, 2017.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support my amendment that prohibits future regulations from the Obama 
administration. This is a commonsense step to rein in our regulatory 
system and make it work for the American people and not the other way 
around.
  Since my first days in office, one message I continue to hear is 
people are tired of an unaccountable government that oversteps its 
bounds. In April, I was successful in pushing the EPA to withdraw a 
harmful regulation that would have devastated the motorsports industry. 
I recently had the opportunity to visit a national leader in custom 
auto-racing parts in my hometown of Concord, North Carolina. I spoke 
with one worker who told me that if this one regulation would have gone 
through, he would have lost his entire livelihood. That, Mr. Chairman, 
is unacceptable.
  The problem is, agencies have moved beyond their constitutional 
authority, and Washington bureaucrats are accountable to no one. They 
show little regard for the real world damage of their new rules on 
working families, on people looking for jobs, on our economy in 
general.
  From regulatory gut punches like ObamaCare and ever-expanding EPA 
rules, stacking one on top of the other often before the previous rule 
is even enacted, regulations under this President have woven a web so 
complex and large, it risks ensnaring every American. This means fewer 
job opportunities, it means lower wages, and more families struggling.
  At its core, overregulation is a form of stealth taxation. Working 
families, working people are paying the price for every new rule that 
comes out of Washington.
  Now, I recognize some regulations are necessary, but we need a 
regulatory system that is transparent, one that balances the needs of 
our environment and public safety with economic strength and jobs, one 
that benefits hardworking Americans, not big government, big labor, and 
big business. It is time for us to chart a new pro-growth course away 
from this administration's burdensome regulations so that Americans can 
get back to work, and this amendment is one solution.

                              {time}  1545

  It will prevent the President from unleashing a new hailstorm of 
regulations in an attempt to cement his legacy in the last months of 
his administration. I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that there is a new 
bipartisanship here. I notice that this bill takes effect from now 
until January 21. So that means we will wait for Mrs. Clinton to become 
President before any new regulation would take effect.
  Secondly, the other side is always complaining about regulations. But 
every so often, we should step back and, instead of knocking our 
country so much, kind of pay attention to what some of those 
regulations have done.
  Sure, we have regulations. We have regulations about conditions in 
coal mines. Is that bad? We have regulations about the water we drink. 
Is that bad? We have regulations about the air we breathe.
  Those regulations make us different from other countries where there 
is no respect for the population and no protection. There is a 
regulation that says you have to go to school up to a certain age. That 
is great. There is a regulation that says no children can be working in 
factories or in the garment industry in New York. That is wonderful.
  So I am not afraid of regulations. Overregulating, okay, we can 
discuss that. But that side wants no regulation. It wants a computer to 
run the country. I keep claiming I want to see who is going to invent 
that computer. Here we go again, just talking about overregulating.
  There are questions. This provision, for instance, would also be in 
direct conflict with other statutory requirements. For example, EPA is 
required to finalize annual renewal fuel standards regulations by 
November 30 of each year. I am sure there are others.
  This is widely overbroad and can prevent significant regulatory 
actions in emergency situations, like disaster relief, where required 
by a court order, or when required by statute.
  For another example, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Trade Bureau, or 
TTB, in Treasury would not be able to publish implementing regulations 
relating to taxation of cider and removal of bond requirements for 
small beverage alcohol producers, and numerous other rules, such as a 
final rule reducing formula burdens on industry for specially denatured 
spirits and completely denatured alcohol, and the modernization of 
beverage alcohol.
  It is easy to say: no more regulations from October 1 to January 21. 
Let the next President deal with it. You are rolling the dice, assuming 
you think you know who is going to be President. But that is okay, I 
can roll along with you.
  The problem is that this is not the way to go. The dislike of the 
Obama administration by the other side is so evident, especially in 
amendments like this, where it is directed. At least, to your credit, 
you had the honesty in you to say the Obama administration. You called 
it by name, and I respect for you that. Other than that, I don't have a 
lot of respect for your amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUDSON. I thank my colleague for his comments. I do agree that we 
don't need to eliminate all regulations. That is certainly not what we 
are saying here. We are saying that, from October 1 until January 21, 
we don't need new regulations.
  With all due respect, I think we have had plenty. The amount of 
regulations that have come out of the Obama administration has been 
astounding. If you compare the amount of regulations to all other 
administrations combined, it is astounding, and they affect every 
aspect of people's lives.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentioned regulations in the past have 
been good. For example, regulating coal mines. I am sure that there 
were good regulations on coal mines, but we are at the point now where 
this administration is going to make coal mines illegal.
  The gentleman also mentioned, Mr. Chairman, regulating water and air. 
We certainly all agree that we want clean air and clean water. But this 
administration issues a clean air regulation, or a new rule, and even 
before it goes into effect, they issue the next one to reduce the 
levels even lower--to levels that even experts agree aren't necessary.
  In fact, members of the other party, in our hearing in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, testified to the fact that the air today is so much 
cleaner

[[Page H4507]]

than it was before. And science proves that.
  In North Carolina, we have got a 20 percent reduction in the coarse 
particulate matter in our air. We have made great progress, but to say 
we are going to continue to lower that level even before the science is 
to determine what the effect of the last regulation was is simply going 
too far.
  What that means is, in places like Montgomery County, North Carolina, 
where we desperately need jobs, you can't have a new job. You can't 
have a new road. You can't have a new water-sewer line. You have can't 
add any new manufacturing jobs. That is ridiculous.
  This administration has had 7\1/2\ years, and they have used that 
time wisely if their goal was to overregulate the American people. All 
I am saying is, in the last few months of this administration, let's 
put the brakes on.
  As my colleague mentioned, we don't know who the next President is 
going to be. It may be someone from the other party. But that new 
President will have won a mandate, and that new President can then 
address the regulatory scheme. I look forward to having that debate. 
But as far as this administration, the votes are in. We have gotten our 
results. This administration has gone way too far with regulation.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to put on the 
brakes and say: 7\1/2\ years; enough is enough.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, you know, it is amazing. Many of us--and I am 
not suggesting you--get elected to Congress, and we are in awe of the 
fact that we come from where we come when we get to Congress. I am in 
that category. I am very blessed. There are others who come to 
Congress, and it seems that they come to Congress to undo Congress and 
undo the government.
  We are the greatest nation on Earth.
  How did we get that?
  Obviously, the fighting and the working spirit of the American 
people. But it was also the protections placed on the American people; 
the fact that children were told you have to go to school, the fact 
that we try to get the best water.
  We spoke before about an immigration issue. I don't call it a 
problem.
  Why does it exist?
  Because people still know that we are the greatest country on Earth, 
and they want to come here.
  So a lot of what you see as government intrusion, a lot of what you 
see as government being a pain could actually be some of the reasons 
that we became the great country we are. We just didn't let people go 
on their own and hurt each other, and so on.
  We had people elected by the people to say: Hey, hold on. Why don't 
we do this? Why don't we do that? Why don't we curtail this? Why don't 
we grow that?
  And we continue to do that. So we disagree. I think we are great 
because we have certain rules to follow. And we follow them well.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce a rule issued 
     pursuant to section 13(p) of the Securities Exchange Act of 
     1934.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Securities and 
Exchange Commission to issue a rule mandating that public companies 
disclose whether the minerals they use benefit armed groups in the 
Democratic Republic of Congo, also known as the DRC, and its nine 
neighboring countries.
  ``Conflict materials'' refer to tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold, 
which have been used in a huge variety of products, from cell phones, 
cosmetics, jewelry, chemicals, footwear, and including auto parts made 
right in west Michigan.
  Simply put, section 1502 produced a rule that has failed everyone, 
and my amendment would, therefore, suspend its implementation for 1 
year. The people of central Africa don't want it. President Obama's own 
SEC chair doesn't want it. Parts of the rule have been judged by the 
courts to violate First Amendment rights, and businesses throughout 
America are burdened with a reporting task that even the Department of 
Commerce has admitted is impossible.
  Recently, the European Union--apparently sobered by other own 
experience in the U.S.--rejected this approach to conflict minerals. It 
is easy to see why they did so.
  As we debate this amendment, let's be clear on what this isn't about. 
It is not about who cares more about the plight of the Congolese more, 
a population that continues to suffer violence at the hands of rebel 
groups. The question is whether a window dressing disclosure rule at 
the SEC is the way to address this problem. If we truly care about 
peace in central Africa, then good intentions aren't enough. We have to 
demand results, Mr. Chairman.
  Sadly, we have gotten the wrong kind of results from section 1502. 
Recently, I spoke with some missionaries from my own denomination who 
confirmed this. However, let's start by highlighting the voices of 
those who too often go unheard in this debate--the voices of the 
Africans themselves.
  I include in the Record an open letter from 70 Congolese leaders and 
other regional experts who wrote:
  ``But in demanding that companies prove the origin of minerals 
sourced in the eastern DRC or neighbouring countries before systems 
able to provide such proof have been put in place, conflict mineral 
activists and resultant legislation--in particular Section 1502 of the 
Dodd-Frank Act--inadvertently incentivize buyers on the international 
market to pull out of the region altogether and source their minerals 
elsewhere.
  ``As a result, the conflict minerals movement has yet to lead to 
meaningful improvement on the ground, and has a number of unintended 
and damaging consequences.''
  According to a Washington Post article titled ``How a well-
intentioned U.S. law left Congolese miners jobless,'' section 1502 
``set off a chain of events that has propelled millions of miners and 
their families deeper into poverty,'' with many miners forced to find 
other ways to survive, including by joining armed groups.
  This article goes on to share the story of a Congolese teenager who 
actually joined a militia because mining could no longer put food on 
his table. ``If we were earning money more from mining, I would not 
have entered the militia,'' he said.
  I ask my colleagues to remember the Congolese, who aren't alone in 
their suffering. The SEC rule applies to nine other African nations as 
if they were all a single country. Section 1502 treats over 230 million 
people living in 10 distinct nations as one undifferentiated group.
  Little wonder that Africans themselves take issue with Washington's 
one-size-fits-all mentality. In testimony to the Financial Services 
Committee last November, Rwanda's Minister of State for Mining, Evode 
Imena, noted that--despite Rwanda's actions to strengthen due diligence 
in its mining sector, and despite the fact that Rwanda has no armed 
groups in the first place--``the region is now suffering from an 
`Africa-free' and not a `conflict-free' minerals situation. Section 
1502 has caused a de facto boycott by companies in the U.S. and much of 
Europe on most of our valuable resources.'' This disaster ``has largely

[[Page H4508]]

impacted the livelihood of thousands of miners and their families . . 
.''
  The words of Africans harmed by this rule should be enough for us to 
suspend it. But if we need more evidence of section 1502's failures, 
let's take a look at hard numbers.
  A GAO study found last year that not a single company sampled could 
determine whether its minerals supported armed groups. Professor Jeff 
Schwartz of the University of Utah Law School has come to a similar 
conclusion, after reviewing 1,300 filings under section 1502.
  Additionally, I wrote to SEC Chair White asking for a detailed 
description of the funds and hours expended to date on the SEC conflict 
minerals disclosure rule. In the SEC response letter, she stated that 
from July 2010 to March 16, 2015, the SEC spent over 21,000 hours and 
approximately $2.7 million on this particular provision which the SEC 
has little to no experience with.
  Given the lack of benefits from this rule, it is no wonder SEC Chair 
Mary Jo White has said:
  ``Seeking to improve safety in mines for workers or to end horrible 
human rights atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are 
compelling objectives, which, as a citizen, I wholeheartedly share. 
But, as the Chair of the SEC, I must question, as a policy matter, 
using the federal securities laws and the SEC's powers of mandatory 
disclosure to accomplish these goals.''
  I agree with the SEC, and I appreciate support for this amendment.

                             An Open Letter

       Dear governments, companies, non-governmental 
     organisations, and other stakeholders implicated in efforts 
     of various kinds related to the issue of `conflict minerals': 
     In early 2014, two international industry giants--Intel and 
     Apple--issued refined corporate social responsibility 
     policies for minerals sourced in the eastern Democratic 
     Republic of the Congo (DRC). The announcements followed an 
     unprecedented wave of guidelines, law-making, and initiatives 
     over the past few years to `clean up' the eastern DRC's 
     mining sector, and were met with widespread praise.
       Perhaps the most widely publicised of these efforts is US 
     legislation known as Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 
     which asks all companies registered on the US stock market to 
     reveal their supply chains to the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission (SEC) when sourcing minerals from the eastern DRC 
     or neighbouring countries. Canada is in the advanced stages 
     of developing similar legislation, and many other countries 
     are looking closely at the issue. The European Union has 
     introduced a voluntary conflict minerals regulation scheme 
     for all member states, and the United Nations (UN) and 
     Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 
     have developed guidelines on sourcing natural resources in 
     high-risk areas such as the eastern DRC.
       These efforts primarily target artisanal (or `informal') 
     mining in the eastern DRC, due to widespread international 
     recognition that so-called conflict minerals (most notably 
     tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold) produced by artisanal 
     mining in this part of the world have helped conflict actors 
     generate revenue to finance their operations in the DRC over 
     the past two decades.


                             The Situation

       Despite successes of activists in shaping policy, the 
     conflict minerals campaign fundamentally misunderstands the 
     relationship between minerals and conflict in the eastern 
     DRC. First, while the minerals help perpetuate the conflict, 
     they are not its cause. National and regional political 
     struggles over power and influence as well as issues such as 
     access to land and questions of citizenship and identity are 
     just some of the more structural drivers of conflict. The 
     ability to exploit and profit from minerals is often a means 
     to finance military operations to address these issues, 
     rather than an end in itself. Internal UN assessments, for 
     instance, show that only 8% of the DRC's conflicts are linked 
     to minerals, and specific motivations vary greatly across the 
     vast array of different armed groups.
       Second, armed groups are not dependent on mineral revenue 
     for their existence. The eastern DRC is a fully militarised 
     economy, in which minerals are just one resource among many 
     that armed groups--and the national army FARDC--can levy 
     financing from. The M23, until recently the most powerful 
     non-state armed group in DRC, never sought physical control 
     over mining activity.
       Moreover, few local stakeholders have been included in on-
     going international policy-making, and as a result realities 
     on the ground have not always been taken into account. 
     Setting up the required systems and procedures to regularly 
     access and audit thousands of artisanal mining sites in 
     isolated and hard-to-reach locations spread across an area 
     almost twice the size of France would be a challenge for any 
     government. In the eastern DRC, where road infrastructure is 
     poor to non-existent and state capacity desperately low, the 
     enormity of the task is hard to overstate. But in demanding 
     that companies prove the origin of minerals sourced in the 
     eastern DRC or neighbouring countries before systems able to 
     provide such proof have been put in place, conflict minerals 
     activists and resultant legislation--in particular Section 
     1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act--inadvertently incentivize buyers 
     on the international market to pull out of the region 
     altogether and source their minerals elsewhere.


                               The Result

       As a result, the conflict minerals movement has yet to lead 
     to meaningful improvement on the ground, and has had a number 
     of unintended and damaging consequences. Nearly four years 
     after the passing of the Dodd-Frank Act, only a small 
     fraction of the hundreds of mining sites in the eastern DRC 
     have been reached by traceability or certification efforts. 
     The rest remain beyond the pale, forced into either 
     illegality or collapse as certain international buyers have 
     responded to the legislation by going `Congo-free'.
       This in turn has driven many miners into the margins of 
     legality (for instance, feeding into smuggling rackets), 
     where armed actors return through the loopholes of 
     transnational regulation. Others have simply lost their jobs, 
     and in areas where mining has ceased, local economies have 
     suffered. To put this in context, an estimated eight to ten 
     million people across the country are dependent on artisanal 
     mining for their livelihood. Some former miners have returned 
     to subsistence agriculture, but persisting insecurity levels 
     leave them in abject poverty facing dire living conditions, 
     in fear of missing harvests due to displacement. Others have 
     been prompted to join militias as a means to quick cash in 
     the absence of other opportunities; a particularly perverse 
     impact, when one considers the intentions of the movement.
       Alongside the impact on mining communities and local 
     economies, several armed groups have responded by turning to 
     different businesses such as trading in charcoal, marijuana, 
     palm oil, soap, or consumer goods. Those remaining in the 
     mining sector have largely traded mineral exploitation on 
     site for mineral taxation a few steps down the supply chain, 
     operating numerous roadblocks that can bring in millions of 
     dollars a year. Others are reported to have sent in family 
     members or civilian allies to run business for them on site, 
     while they remain safely at a distance.
       For the few mining sites fortunate enough to be reached by 
     Joint Assessment Teams responsible for determining their 
     `conflict-free' status, these teams have been unable to 
     provide the regular, three-month validation visits envisaged 
     in legislation. There is an additional delay of several 
     months following these visits before the Congolese Ministry 
     of Mines reviews and approves the assessment at the national 
     level. Given the speed at which situations can change in 
     volatile environments, infrequent assessments and lengthy 
     delays raise concerns over the accuracy of certification and 
     the credibility of the system.
       More worrying still, multinational corporations such as 
     Apple and Intel are auditing smelters to determine the 
     conflict-free status of the minerals they source, and not the 
     mines themselves. As smelters are located outside of the DRC 
     and audits are not always conducted by third parties, these 
     processes raise further concerns over whether conflict-free 
     certifications reflect production realities.
       By far the most advanced site in terms of producing 
     `conflict-free' minerals for sale to the international market 
     is Kalimbi, a tin mining area home to externally-financed 
     initiatives running an industry-led bagging-and-tagging 
     scheme called iTSCi. Yet even here, despite the establishment 
     of a `closed pipeline' from mine to exportation, the mine 
     still suffers from the sporadic influence of armed actors, 
     and miners are made to bear the additional costs of 
     `conflict-free' schemes. This raises further concerns over 
     the credibility of the system in place, and its suitability 
     for the scale-up and expansion to other, more remote mine 
     sites currently underway. Coupled with slow progress in 
     implementation, the trend towards the monopolisation of 
     `conflict-free' supply chain initiatives, in particular 
     traceability by iTSCi, is economically damaging to local 
     populations since it currently excludes and isolates the 
     overwhelming majority of mining communities from legal access 
     to international markets.


                            The Alternative

       There is broad consensus for the need to clean up the 
     eastern Congo's minerals sector, yet much disagreement about 
     the international community's current model for achieving 
     this goal. As such, efforts to improve transparency in the 
     eastern DRC's mineral supply chains should continue. Yet a 
     more nuanced and holistic approach that takes into account 
     the realities of the eastern DRC's mining sector and the 
     complexity of the conflict is needed. To this end, we make 
     the following five recommendations:
       Improve consultation with government and communities: 
     Congolese government and civil society were poorly consulted 
     on Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act prior to its passing, 
     and as a result many were unaware of its implications. The 
     few who were consulted were unanimously pro-Dodd-Frank, 
     creating additional conflicts on local levels where 
     endorsement and dissent compete. More Congolese voices must 
     be listened to, and the local context and power structures

[[Page H4509]]

     taken into account. This would ensure greater understanding 
     of the local context and better harmonisation with existing 
     national and regional initiatives, such as the International 
     Conference of the Great Lakes Region's (ICGLR) Regional 
     Initiative against the Illegal Exploitation of Natural 
     Resources.
       Work towards meaningful reform: The audit process should be 
     designed to improve policies and practices rather than to 
     just provide window-dressing. The dominant belief that static 
     oversight and validation processes ensure `conflict-free' 
     mineral trade is misplaced given the volatile security 
     situation in most of the eastern DRC. Both mines and smelters 
     should be regularly inspected and the time period between 
     inspection and certification minimized. Where this is not 
     feasible, additional waivers or similar measures should not 
     be ruled out.
       Create incentives towards better practice: Legal frameworks 
     must be supported by real projects on the ground that can 
     meet their requirements. If this is not possible--which is 
     clearly still the case today, nearly four years after the 
     passing of Dodd-Frank--then transition periods must be 
     extended and the lowering of excessively high standards for 
     `conflict-free' minerals should be considered. Similarly, 
     former conflict actors should be incentivised where 
     appropriate to join new `conflict-free' schemes. This may 
     help avoid the eventual subversion or infiltration of the 
     `clean' system put in place, as has been seen to date.
       Promote fair competition: Regulation must be based on 
     competition that allows not only international businesses but 
     also Congolese producers to influence (i.e. increase) local 
     price schemes. This in turn would encourage a regime that 
     ensures minimum wages which mining cooperatives can guarantee 
     to their members based on their increased leverage on the 
     price fluctuation.
       Widen the lens: Root causes of conflict such as land, 
     identity, and political contest in the context of a 
     militarized economy, rather than a single focus on minerals, 
     must be considered by advocates seeking to reduce conflict 
     violence. Furthermore, efforts to eradicate conflict minerals 
     should not overlook the fact that artisanal mining is a key 
     livelihood in the eastern DRC that holds as much potential to 
     help steer the region away from conflict as it does to 
     contribute towards it. More supportive measures are needed--
     such as those found in the earlier 2009 draft of the US 
     Conflict Minerals Act--that can help capture the economic 
     potential of artisanal mining. Finally, other critical 
     challenges such as access to credit, technical knowledge, 
     hazardous working conditions, and environmental degradation 
     should not be ignored by multinational corporations if they 
     seek to improve business practices and increase transparency 
     in their supply chains.
       So far, progress has been made in producing more ethical 
     products for consumers, but stakeholders have not yet 
     proceeded to improve the lives of Congolese people, nor 
     address the negative impact current `conflict-free' 
     initiatives are having. If the conflict minerals agenda is to 
     lead to positive change on the ground, legislation passed by 
     national governments and steps such as those outlined by 
     Apple or Intel need to be grounded in a more holistic 
     approach that is better tailored to local realities. Failure 
     to do so will continue to seriously limit the ability of 
     conflict minerals initiatives to improve the daily lives of 
     the eastern Congolese and their neighbours. Worse, these 
     initiatives will risk contributing to, rather than 
     alleviating, the very conflicts they set out to address.


                          List of Signatories

       1. Aloys Tegera (Director, POLE Institute Goma)
       2. Ann Laudati (Lecturer at the School for Geographical 
     Sciences, University of Bristol)
       3. Ashley Leinweber (Assistant Professor of Political 
     Science, Missouri State University)
       4. Ben Radley (Researcher, International Institute of 
     Social Studies & `Obama's Law' Producer)
       5. Bonnie Campbell (Professor of Political Science, 
     Universite du Quebec a Montreal)
       6. Christiane Kayser (Independent Analyst & Civil Peace 
     Service-Bread for the World mobile team)
       7. Christoph Vogel (Researcher, University of Zurich & 
     Independent analyst/writer)
       8. Cyprien Birhingingwa (Executive Secretary, COSOC-GL & 
     Coordinator of CENADEP Kivu)
       9. Daniel Rothenberg (Professor of Practice, School of 
     Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University)
       10. David Rieff (Independent Author and Commentator)
       11. Deo Buuma (Executive Secretary, Action pour la Paix et 
     la Concorde--APC, Bukavu)
       12. Didier de Failly s.j., (Directeur, Maison de Mines du 
     Kivu, Bukavu)
       13. Dominic Johnson (Africa Editor and Deputy Foreign 
     Editor, die tageszeitung)
       14. Dorothea Hilhorst (Professor of Humanitarian Aid and 
     Reconstruction, Wageningen University)
       15. Emmanuel Shamavu (Director, APRODEPED, Bukavu)
       16. Eric Kajemba (Coordinator, Observatoire Gouvernance et 
     Paix, Bukavu)
       17. Esther Marijnen (Researcher, Institute for European 
     Studies/Vrije Universiteit Brussel)
       18. Evariste Mfaume (Executive Director, ``Solidarite des 
     Volontaires pour l'Humanite'')
       19. Gabriel Kamundala (Researcher, CEGEMI & Universite 
     Catholique de Bukavu)
       20. Ganza Buroko (Cultural Operator & Coordinator of 
     Yole!Africa, Goma)
       21. Godefroid Ka Mana (Professor, ULPGL Goma & UEA Bukavu & 
     Universite Kasavubu Boma)
       22. Godefroid Muzalia (Professor, Institut Superieur 
     Pedagogique de Bukavu)
       23. Henning Tamm (Postdoctoral Prize Research Fellow, 
     Nuffield College, University of Oxford)
       24. Herbert Weiss (Emeritus Professor of Political Science, 
     City University of New York)
       25. James Smith (Associate Professor of Anthropology, 
     University of California/Davis)
       26. Jean Ziegler (Former UN Special Rapporteur for the 
     Right to Food and Professor at University of Geneva)
       27. Jeroen Cuvelier (Postdoctoral Researcher, Wageningen 
     University and Ghent University)
       28. John Kanyoni (Independent Consultant and Vice-President 
     of the Congolese Chamber of Mines)
       29. Josaphat Musamba (Assistant Professor, Universite Simon 
     Kimbangu of Bukavu)
       30. Joschka Havenith (Independent Researcher and 
     Consultant, Cologne)
       31. Jose Diemel (Researcher, Special Chair for Humanitarian 
     Aid & Reconstruction, Wageningen University)
       32. Joshua Walker (Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University 
     of the Witwatersrand)
       33. Josue Mukulumanya (President of the South Kivu mining 
     cooperatives board GECOMISKI)
       34. Justine Brabant (Independent Researcher and Journalist)
       35. Juvenal Munubo (Member of Parliament, Democratic 
     Republic of the Congo)
       36. Juvenal Twaibu (Director, Centre Independant de 
     Recherches et d'Etudes Strategiques au Kivu)
       37. Ken Matthysen (Researcher on artisanal mining in 
     eastern Congo, Antwerp)
       38. Kizito Mushizi (Member of Parliament, Democratic 
     Republic of the Congo)
       39. Koen Vlassenroot (Director, Conflict Research Group & 
     Professor, Ghent University)
       40. Kris Berwouts (Independent Consultant and Author)
       41. Kristof Titeca (Assistant Professor, University of 
     Antwerp)
       42. Laura Seay (Assistant Professor of Government, Colby 
     College)
       43. Ley Uwera (Independent Journalist and Author, Goma)
       44. Loochi Muzaliwa (Programme Coordinator, Life and Peace 
     Institute DRC)
       45. Micheline Mwendike (Activist, on behalf of LUCHA--Lutte 
     pour le Changement/Struggle for Change)
       46. Manuel Wollschlager (Conseiller Technique, ZFD-AGEH in 
     Bukavu)
       47. Milli Lake (Assistant Professor, Arizona State 
     University)
       48. Nicole Eggers (Assistant Professor of African History, 
     Loyola University New Orleans)
       49. Odile Bulabula (Deputy Coordinator, RIO--Network for 
     Organisational Innovation, Bukavu)
       50. Padraic MacOireachtaigh (Regional Advocacy and 
     Communications Officer, Jesuit Refugee Service)
       51. Pamela Faber (Researcher, St. Catherine's College, 
     University of Oxford)
       52. Passy Mubalama (Independent Journalist and Author, 
     Goma)
       53. Paul Muhindo Mulemberi (Member of Parliament, 
     Democratic Republic of the Congo)
       54. Paul-Romain Namegabe (Professor of Law, Director of 
     CEGEMI, Universite Catholique de Bukavu)
       55. Paulin Bishakabalya (Director of Humanitarian 
     Assistance and Development Committee, Bukavu)
       56. Peer Schouten (Postdoctoral Researcher, University of 
     Gothenburg)
       57. Phil Clark (Reader in Comparative and International 
     Politics, SOAS/University of London)
       58. Rachel Niehuus (Postdoctoral Researcher at University 
     of California, San Francisco)
       59. Rachel Strohm (Researcher in Political Science, 
     University of Berkeley)
       60. Raf Custers (Independent Journalist and Author on 
     Mining)
       61. Remy Kasindi (Director, Centre for Research and 
     Strategic Studies in Central Africa, Bukavu)
       62. Rodrigue Rukumbuzi (Coordinator, AGAPE-Hauts Plateaux, 
     Uvira)
       63. Rosebell Kagumire (Independent Consultant and Blogger, 
     Kampala/Addis Ababa)
       64. Salammbo Mulonda Bulambo (Director, PIAP, Bukavu)
       65. Sara Geenen (Postdoctoral Researcher, Institute of 
     Development Policy, Antwerp University)
       66. Sekombi Katondolo (Director, Radio Mutaani, Goma)
       67. Severine Autesserre (Assistant Professor, Barnard 
     College, Columbia University)
       68. Thomas Idolwa Tchomba (Consultant and Mining Expert, 
     Goma)
       69. Timothy Makori (Researcher, Department of Anthropology, 
     University of Toronto)
       70. Timothy Raeymaekers (Lecturer in Political Geography, 
     University of Zurich)
       71. Yvette Mwanza (President of the Mining Committee, 
     Federation des Entreprises Congolaises North Kivu)
       72. Zacharie Bulakali (Independent Researcher on mining in 
     eastern Congo)
       All the signatories listed express their support to the 
     open letter in its above form but

[[Page H4510]]

     not necessarily approve of accompanying opinion pieces and/or 
     explanatory notes, which remain their respective authors' 
     views.

  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just another devious Republican 
attempt to undermine efforts to end the decade-long scourge of rape and 
murder in Congo.
  I have been in Congo many times. I served in the State Department in 
Kinshasa. I know the area. And the gentleman's statement that there is 
no company that is able to do this is absolutely incorrect. There is a 
company in Coral Gables, Florida, Kemet Corporation. They certify every 
bit of their metal is conflict-free. It is possible to do.
  Now, why is this important? Well, all the 5 million people that have 
died in eastern Congo since Rwanda in 1992-93 have been from armed 
militias that are getting their money by taking minerals out of the 
ground and selling them abroad using slave labor.
  The way you enslave a man is to rape his wife in front of him, and 
then bring him down and chain him and make him dig up the minerals. 
That is what has been going on there, and it has been going on for a 
long time, and everyone in this room is benefiting from that.
  Everybody who has a cell phone has tin, tungsten, tantalum in it. And 
what this amendment is about is companies that will not go through the 
process. They do not want to do it. They want to get it from wherever 
it comes from. They don't care who it is.
  Now, you can't tell me, and I know enough about Boeing and a lot of 
other companies, that they know their supply chain right down to where 
it starts in the ground somewhere. Everything that is in a plane, they 
know where it came from. And for them to say they don't know where it 
comes from or I can't know is simply that they want to get it on the 
cheap and don't care about human value in central Africa.
  Now, the gentleman has given me the opening, which I didn't know if I 
would have, but his own church, the Christian Reformed Church in North 
America, their coordinator of office of social justice says defunding 
section 1502 and amendment No. 34 is immoral. It will result in 
violations and will undo work to our conflict-free mining in Africa.
  This is a long-time battle, and we have had no one come up with any 
other way to deal with this except to cut off the money to the 
militias. To say there is not armed conflict in eastern Congo is 
somebody who has got their head buried in the sand; because if you go 
over there, you know that there is conflict from Rwanda and Uganda and 
all the countries in that area, because this stuff is valuable and 
people want it, and they want it on the cheap.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I maybe, possibly like yourself, have occasional differences with my 
own church denomination. I have challenged them to talk to their own 
missionaries that are in the surrounding areas, whom I have talked to, 
who are also out on the coast, who are now seeing minerals exported.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Reclaiming my time, I get your point. You are saying 
that your church in wherever they are located, in Michigan or wherever, 
they are out of touch with what is going on on the ground.
  I am in touch with the people on the ground. There are groups like 
HEAL Africa, which have been operating a hospital in Goma, which has 
been filled with people that come from this whole process. And when you 
go over there and talk to them, they say the only way you are ever 
going to do it here is cut off the money, and that means saying to 
people you have got to know where that tin or tungsten or tantalum came 
from and was it gotten by using slave labor.
  If you are unwilling to do that, as a company, in the United States, 
you have no moral fiber. If you are not willing to say you will not use 
slave labor for the material that is in your product, in your cell 
phone--and believe me, it wouldn't be hard to get a boycott going in 
this country against some folks who want to, but nobody wants to come 
out in the open.
  This amendment gets slid in at the last minute every year. Senator 
Durbin, Senator Coons, Barney Frank, all of us worked on this. We have 
heard it all.
  And of course the SEC doesn't want to do it. They don't want to do 
anything that doesn't have to do with paper shuffling and letting the 
derivatives run through the economy. They simply have been given this 
because they handle the money.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Farenthold). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used the Securities and Exchange Commission to finalize, 
     implement, administer, or enforce pay ratio disclosure rules, 
     including the final rule titled ``Pay Ratio Disclosure'', 
     published Aug. 18, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 50103).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit any funds from being used 
by the SEC to implement, administer, or enforce the ineffective pay 
ratio disclosure mandate in section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
  Under Dodd-Frank, section 953(b) requires all publicly traded 
companies to calculate and disclose, for each filing with the SEC, the 
median annual total compensation of all employees of the company, 
excluding the CEO, disclose the annual total compensation of the CEO, 
and calculate and disclose a ratio comparing those two numbers.
  In adopting the final rule, the SEC admitted that the pay ratio 
disclosure provides ``no quantifiable benefit to public shareholders, 
yet it will cost public companies billions of dollars in initial and 
ongoing compliance expenses that could otherwise be used for investment 
in equipment and in job creation.''
  While the SEC provided modest flexibility in the final rule as 
compared to its initial proposal, the final rule did not mitigate the 
most significant burdens that the public companies will face as they 
collect and calculate the compensation information necessary to comply.
  Companies must still all include all employees--including temporary, 
part-time, seasonal employees--and non-U.S. employees into their pay 
ratio calculation. The rule's 5 percent exclusion for non-U.S. 
employees, which includes any foreign employee whose salary data is 
protected by their home country privacy laws, will not defray the 
significant compliance costs, which the SEC estimates at $1.3 billion 
in initial compliance costs and $526 million on an ongoing annual cost 
basis.

[[Page H4511]]

  Even the former Financial Services chairman, Barney Frank, 
acknowledged that burden before a September 24, 2010, hearing, stating: 
``I would note, again, that it was a Senate provision, and I think our 
inclination is to see to what extent it can be lessened as a burden, 
and, if not, we would be able to work and try to change that next 
year.''
  That was almost 6 years ago, Mr. Chairman. During that same hearing, 
the Democratic witness, Mr. Martin Baily of the Squam Lake Group, 
stated: ``I am quite concerned about the level of poverty in the United 
States. I am quite concerned about the fact that ordinary workers have 
not done very well in the last few years. I don't see how publishing 
that ratio helps anybody very much, so I am not a big fan of that.''
  Amen. I could not agree more, Mr. Baily.
  In his dissent, SEC Commissioner Gallagher stated: ``Addressing 
perceived income inequality is not the province of the securities laws 
or the Commission.''
  Additionally, SEC Chair Mary Jo White has expressed similar concerns 
about the provision of the Dodd-Frank Act, noting that several 
provisions ``appear more directed at exerting societal pressure on 
companies to change behavior rather than to disclose financial 
information that primarily informs investments decisions.''
  Again, I could not agree more, Mr. Chairman.
  This useless disclosure requirement creates a number of lengthy and 
burdensome reporting obligations whose costs far outweighs any 
perceived benefits. This includes failing to provide shareholders with 
useful information or facilitate a better understanding of pay 
practices, which some falsely trumpet this provision would do.
  Mr. Chairman, we are all concerned about creating more jobs in our 
various congressional districts, and instead of companies being forced 
to spend millions of dollars trying to comply with a regulatory mandate 
for which the SEC has been unable to quantify any benefits to the 
public, shouldn't these burdensome costs, instead, be converted and 
used by manufacturers, retailers, and other public companies for much-
needed investment and job creation? I think so. I urge my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It 
would repeal a requirement that companies show just how much more the 
CEO is paid compared to the company's median worker.
  Why are Republicans so scared about reporting this number?
  I imagine my Republicans colleagues will describe the alleged costs 
to industry. Indeed, industry has offered wildly exaggerated estimates 
of the SEC's initial proposal, 10 times what the SEC economists 
estimated. However, none of these estimates are credible. There is no 
indication that industry has yet to come up with any credible estimate 
for the cost of the final rule. In fact, no one has, as the House 
Financial Services Committee has failed to convene a hearing on the 
final rule and the flexibility provided by the SEC. Worse, the 
committee has failed to hold a hearing on the bill, itself, this 
Congress. Rather, the Republicans are rushing this bill through the 
House and once again seek to repeal outright this provision in Dodd-
Frank.
  In the past, and before the SEC finalized its flexible rule, 
Democrats offered amendments to ease burdens on businesses, but 
Republicans weren't interested then and are apparently worried that the 
American public and investors will finally see that not all public 
companies pay their employees the same. In fact, some companies pay 
their CEO 400 times the median employee.
  My Republican colleagues aren't concerned that CEOs and the rest of 
the 1 percent continue to take most of the income and wealth of this 
country. My colleagues aren't concerned that minorities and low-income 
Americans haven't seen a raise in decades.
  The SEC has provided industry with as much flexibility as it could 
while still being consistent with the congressional mandate. I will 
also note that the requirement doesn't affect small businesses or 
emerging growth companies, but it is targeted to companies that retail 
investors overwhelmingly choose to invest in.
  I know that industry, especially the global manufacturers, oppose the 
SEC rule, but I think that the information provided by this number 
matters. It will go a long way to identify the disparity between the 
top 1 percent and the everyday worker. It will go a long way towards 
enabling everyday investors to fund companies that properly compensate 
their employees, or punish those that inappropriately compensate their 
CEO.
  I urge my colleagues to think seriously about this amendment, and I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the 
remaining time on both sides.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 1 minute remaining, 
and the gentleman from New York has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. And I believe I have the right to close; 
correct?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has the right to close.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to 
point out to my colleague from New York that he is actually wrong. We 
marked this bill up in committee in April of this year.
  And the interesting thing, Mr. Chairman, is they want it both ways. 
We have to follow the SEC until they don't want to do it, and then they 
disagree with it. They disagree with the statement that the SEC 
apparently has come up with that this is going to cost $1.7 billion in 
this initial year.
  They want to say that the Obama economy is great--until it isn't and 
it doesn't work in their favor.
  I, too, am very concerned and join my colleagues of all stripes to 
say that this economy has not responded the way it needs to and we need 
to have those wages up. And here we are robbing Peter to pay Paul, 
because we are going to take that money that could go into investing in 
equipment and productivity and actual workers, and we are going to do 
meaningless reports to this that tell us nothing. And the words of the 
SEC Chair--not my words, the SEC Chair--says that this brings no 
meaningful information to people in the economy.

                              {time}  1615

  So I don't understand why, other than window dressing, once again, 
and trying to set up a straw man argument, for why the businesses are 
doing what they are doing, why they would move ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have never seen a corporation tell you that studying 
their business practices is well-spent money. Everybody wants to keep 
everybody in the dark as to what is going on.
  The American people have a sense of what is going on. We have heard 
enough, especially during this last campaign, about the 1 percent and 
the 99 percent. We have heard enough about how on Wall Street, in my 
city of New York, part of the problem was the lack of supervision by 
the FCC and by the SEC. And part of the problem--a large part--was the 
bonuses that these folks were getting. A $50 million bonus in some 
cases and a $25 million bonus in some cases was not something unheard 
of.
  So I think that every so often the American people need to know and 
get information that may seem like a waste of money to some people, but 
actually can get at a problem.
  We need to know in this capitalist society that we have--and we are 
not about to change that. We all like it. I like it. I want to keep it. 
But I think we have to try to look for ways to balance so that 99 
percent of the people are not in danger of hurting while 1 percent of 
the folks are in great shape.
  To find out that CEOs sometimes get 400 times the salary of one of 
their workers is totally outrageous, and the American people should 
know that and

[[Page H4512]]

should know--especially in the cases of stockholders too, there are a 
lot of stockholders who are small stockholders--and they want to know 
what company they are investing in.
  So I think that this rule or this approach is good, and I think your 
amendment just tries to--I am not saying you do--but your amendment, 
the final result will be to try to cover up the truth, and that is not 
a good thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that Amendment No. 36 will not be offered.


                 Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Lance

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 37 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by the Act may be 
     used in contravention of, or to implement changes to, section 
     560.516 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, as in 
     effect on June 22, 2016.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Lance) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to eliminate the 
potential of Iran's gaining access to the U.S. dollar.
  As Iran continues to violate international law with illicit ballistic 
missile tests, as it undermines U.S. foreign policy, and as it 
destabilizes the Middle East, the Obama administration may be willing 
to ease restrictions on Iran's access to the dollar and potentially 
reward Iran's international provocations with coveted access to world 
financial markets.
  We cannot allow this to happen.
  Since agreeing to the Iranian deal last year, the Obama 
administration has seemingly gone out of its way to appease Iran. 
Sanctions were lifted with little to show in the way of nuclear 
disarmament. The rogue regime is now selling oil on the international 
market, and Iran has received access to tens of billions of dollars 
held abroad and has signed deals worth over $100 billion in foreign 
investment.
  Allowing Iran to have access to the dollar would mark an 
unprecedented additional concession to the world's leading state 
sponsor of terrorism. Access to the dollar would be an undeserved 
reward to a country that tortures its own people, denies human rights 
to women, and has the blood of Americans and our allies on its hands.
  But in an effort to advance the nuclear agreement, I worry that the 
President may act unilaterally--as he has done so often in the past--
and permit the Treasury Department and other Federal entities to 
proceed with granting Iran the access to the dollar it so desperately 
wants. A vote for this amendment will eliminate that possibility.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that this does not change what is currently 
the situation in this country. Last summer, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew 
testified that Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars 
through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. 
financial institutions, or enter into financing agreements with U.S. 
banks.
  As the Secretary made clear, Iran, in other words, will continue to 
be denied access to the world's largest financial and commercial 
market.
  This amendment simply puts that promise into statutory law, and that 
is why I have proposed it. The Lance amendment will eliminate any 
possibility that we might move in the other direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I don't, as you can see, have much to say on this because it is 
really an interesting situation. It is an amendment looking for a 
problem that doesn't exist. It is an amendment looking for the 
possibility that the President--there we go again, the gentleman in the 
White House--that the President may do something he hasn't said 
anything about doing.
  The Treasury Department says that there are no current plans to amend 
the regulation and that flexibility is not at issue at this point 
because no one is discussing this.
  The second part to this amendment is the underlying feeling by some 
Members still that the deal with Iran was a bad deal, that that deal 
won't work, and that somehow we will be left holding the bag. Well, 
giving peace a chance, as the song says, is never a bad thing to do.
  I would hope that in the future we deal only with amendments that 
speak to an existing problem and not to an amendment that simply speaks 
about: What if? We have too many what-ifs in amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment and would hope that our 
colleagues would vote against it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that this is not designed against 
any one President. This would be put into statutory law, and it would 
proceed after this President leaves office.
  I believe that it is important that this fundamental principle--that 
Iran not have access to the U.S. dollar--should be in statutory law and 
not merely a matter of executive action. That is why I have proposed 
the amendment.
  I hope that all Members will consider the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to note that we speak about it, and 
it is not directed at any one President. But we have a unique system. 
We only have one President at a time. So it is directed at one 
President.
  I suspect that if we were going to stay in session--which we are 
not--for every week from now until the end of the year, we would see 
more and more and more bills--up to December 31--bills that would try 
to limit the power of the office of the Presidency because of who 
occupies it right now and the disdain that the other side, so many 
Members, have for our President.
  I see it differently. I see the Iran deal as a possibility for peace. 
Maybe history will say that I was naive. But I know the alternative, 
and the alternative is war. So any time that I can take a chance on 
evading and not having war, let's go for it.
  Secondly, to legislate by suggesting that something could happen and 
therefore we have to head it off at the pass is not the way to 
legislate.
  I would hope that we could vote against this amendment. I urge 
opposition to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANCE. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying that the Iranian 
agreement is, of course, extremely controversial. It was voted down by 
the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, there was never any vote 
in the other House because cloture was not achieved.
  The President submitted the Iranian agreement as an agreement, not as 
a treaty, based upon the fact that legislation has been passed to make 
it an agreement. I think it is important that as a matter of statutory 
law we make sure that Iran not have access to the U.S. dollar, and that 
is why I propose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
  The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page H4513]]

  



              Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
Number 38.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce Executive Order 13166 (August 16, 2000; 65 
     Fed. Reg. 50121).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is an amendment that I offered before in 
the past. It simply says: ``None of the funds made available by this 
Act may be used to enforce Executive Order 13166.''
  That is an executive order that was filed by then-President Clinton 
on August 16 in the year 2000, in the last months of his Presidency, 
that directs all Federal fund recipients--and that would include 
Federal contractors, State and local governments, as well as the 
Federal Government--to facilitate language interpretation with anyone 
who seeks to engage with them.
  That has been an executive order that has been highly costly not only 
to the taxpayers, but to the consumers in this country, in time and in 
money. It was one of the initial things that began to slow down this 
process of assimilation in America.
  We know that a common language is the most powerful unifying force 
known throughout all of history, whether it is English or whether it is 
some other language in some other country, and that we have a strong 
effort to establish English as the official language of the United 
States.
  I happen to be the author of that accomplishment in the State of 
Iowa. Thirty other States have English as the official language, and 
some 83 percent of Americans support this policy. Yet President 
Clinton's executive order subverts this and works to fracture us rather 
than unify us.
  So it will save us billions of dollars. I didn't bring that figure to 
the floor with me, but we know it has been very expensive over time. We 
are 16 years into this. It has been destructive to the unity of the 
American people. I want to see us united as a people, and this is one 
of the steps that we can take.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I won't speak in Spanish. I will only speak in English. 
The gentleman is a person that we all know well. He can't pass up the 
opportunity to say something about immigrants and say something about 
English as the official language.
  Let me start off by saying this: I don't speak for any community, and 
I certainly don't know what other communities go through. But I can 
tell you that in the Hispanic/Latino community, when people sit around 
the dinner table and the issue of language comes up, it is not a plot 
against the English language. It is usually a conversation about how 
the children and the grandchildren no longer speak Spanish; they speak 
only English. That is just a fact.
  Number two, this assimilation issue, do you really think that someone 
would leave all their small belongings behind, leave in many cases 
their wife and their children to come into this country undocumented--
assuming we are talking about undocumented people--before they can find 
a way to bring the rest of the family, to not learn English, to 
purposely keep themselves away from immigrating into the American 
society?
  On the contrary, some of the jokes are that some of the better--not 
better, but stronger-feeling Americans, the ones who want to vote, the 
ones who want to wave the flag strongly and proudly, are people who 
came from other countries.

                              {time}  1630

  Just about everybody has somebody that came from another country, 
either now or a long time ago.
  The reason that President Clinton and so many of us have supported 
the issue--and I am speaking about the first President Clinton, not the 
next one--the fact that we support the issue of giving service is 
because in many ways this could be a constitutional question.
  I will give you an example. I am not a lawyer, but it says life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that is what we are promised. 
Well, life could be a paramedic being able to speak to you in a 
language that you understand. Liberty could be you in a trial getting 
an interpreter so what you have to say to that judge and to that jury 
can be understood. And the pursuit of happiness, of course, is a 
separate issue, but it allows you to grow two cultures at the same 
time.
  I speak Spanish, I speak English, and I am a Member of the U.S. 
Congress. I don't think the fact that I speak Spanish has made me a 
worse Congressman or a worse American. I was born in an American 
territory that speaks a lot of Spanish. I grew up speaking Spanish and 
English at the same time. I am still working on both to be better at 
them every day, but I am a living example that there is nothing wrong 
with speaking more than one language.
  We in this country have a couple of fears that set us apart from the 
rest of the world and make us less than the rest of the world, and that 
is the fear of languages. In some other countries, in Europe and so on, 
children at the age of 10 speak two, three, or four languages; grownups 
speak a couple of languages. It doesn't hurt them in any way.
  What is wrong if you speak another language?
  But here we are talking about services, going to the Department of 
Motor Vehicles and getting someone who can understand what you are 
saying until you learn to speak English. But trust me, the big line 
here is ``until you speak English,'' because no one wants to come here 
and remain only speaking Spanish or their own country's language and 
forgetting English.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would say first in response to the 
gentleman, and I respect his position and his background, but I would 
say if he had a development in the Greek language, he might think of 
that pursuit of happiness as what our Founding Fathers did. They called 
it eudaimonia, E-U-D-A-I-M-O-N-I-A, the Greek word. That means 
developing the whole human being--the body, the mind, the spirit, and 
the soul--all together.
  That pursuit of happiness wasn't about a tailgate party. It was about 
becoming the best human being that you could. That is a little 
difference in the translation of the language that got lost. It is an 
example of how we are divided by language rather than unified by a 
common language.
  Another example would be Israel. It became a country in 1948. In 
1954, they adopted Hebrew as their official language. I asked them why, 
and they said: Because we saw the example of the United States, that 
you have embraced English as your common language. It has unified the 
people. We needed to have a language to unify the Israelis.
  And it has been successful, and I could give you examples. One day I 
got in a taxicab and there was a gentleman there. He spoke perfect 
English and he didn't seem to fit what a normal taxicab driver was. I 
said: Where were you raised?
  He said: Bosnia.
  How long have you been here?
  Seven years.
  Did you learn English before you came?
  Not a word.
  How can you speak perfect English in 7 years?
  He said: It helps when you have to.
  So I am not about discouraging the utilization of other languages, 
and this amendment does not do that. What it says is I am dispatched by 
the taxpayer dollars that are contributing to the division of America 
rather than let us have an encouragement to pull together in the same 
language. That is what this is about. It is a fiscally responsible 
amendment that addresses an

[[Page H4514]]

83 percent majority in 31 States that have already taken this act.
  I urge its adoption.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I have been informed that the gentleman 
picked the wrong example--Israel--because they have more than one 
official language, but that is okay. The more the merrier.
  The fact of life is that the gentleman picked the example of someone 
who learned English. Well, everybody wants to learn to speak English. 
If you go to my community in the South Bronx, you see small-business 
owners. Those are the best examples. Some of them speak what we would 
call broken English. Some of them speak perfect English. Their 
children, half of them no longer speak Spanish; they speak English. 
Their children are attending Fordham University or a university down 
South. They are not going to be bodega owners when they grow up, or cab 
drivers. They most likely will go work on Wall Street or somewhere else 
or teach.
  In other words, we have a pattern in this country that hasn't been 
broken. What made us great is the fact that people come here, they 
adapt, they become part of this country, and then they defend this 
country with everything they have got, including their blood. That 
happens all the time, it happens all the time, and it is not going to 
stop happening.
  So if you have a worry--and I have heard you for years--that somehow 
speaking Spanish is going to wreck this country, on the contrary. Just 
learn to speak Spanish and you will feel much better.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would say in response to the 
gentleman, I give some thought to the story of the Tower of Babel. We 
know that the construction manager there was Nimrod. He was building a 
tower to the heavens. They had the arrogance to believe that they could 
bypass God and get to heaven without Him. The Lord looked down on the 
Tower of Babel and He said:
  Behold, they are one people, they speak all one language, and nothing 
that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.
  He scrambled their languages and scattered them to the four winds. 
Humanity on the planet has been at each other's throats ever since. 
That is the message of the Tower of Babel.
  My message is unify us as one people. It is not discouraging the 
utilization of other languages, but it is discouraging the idea that we 
should establish ethic enclaves in America, that we should isolate 
ourselves somehow in these neighborhoods and not be assimilating into a 
broader neighborhood.
  I will give an example to the gentleman. When Bush was President and 
we had a representative from the Department of Labor who came to 
testify before the Small Business Committee, she said: We have a 
problem. We don't have enough workers in the factories to run our punch 
presses and our lathes. Simple industrial work.

  Why is that?
  She said: Well, the applicants are not literate in the English 
language, and we have great difficulty in teaching them how to operate 
these machines.
  I said: I can understand that if they are first-generation 
immigrants. In fact, I can understand it if some of them are second 
generation.
  She cut me off and said: Even third generation.
  So the pick-up of the language and the transition into the next 
generation is not happening at the speed it did because our enclaves 
are getting larger and more populated and people are more isolated into 
that.
  I want to encourage people to be successful, to go out and get an 
education and to assimilate more broadly. I want to be able to look 
across this country and know that I can walk into a city council 
meeting anywhere and know that it is being conducted in English. I want 
people to be able to talk and communicate with each other. When I go to 
a foreign country and they speak their language, I get the sense of 
that, too.
  We gravitate towards common kind, and the more common we can be, the 
more things we can have in common with each other, the more likely we 
are to be bonded together. That is what this amendment is about.
  I urge its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


              Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to carry out Operation Choke Point.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, how does the Federal Government get 
rid of an industry it doesn't like?
  Simple. It cuts that industry off from the financial services 
sector--the lifeblood of every business in this country.
  It sounds impossible, doesn't it?
  However, that is exactly what the FDIC is doing in conjunction with 
the Department of Justice. By this point, we are all familiar with 
Operation Choke Point. It is the program designed to force legally 
operating and licensed entities out of business by choking them off 
from the financial services they need.
  What started with nondepository lenders has spread to many other 
industries. Reports indicate that the FDIC and DOJ continue to pressure 
financial institutions that service the gun, ammunition, and tobacco 
industries. These are legal industries, and it is my belief that no 
joint FDIC and DOJ operation should broadly target lawful commerce.
  I want to be very clear. I strongly support the FDIC and other 
Federal banking regulators' authority to monitor financial institutions 
and identify risky behavior. But what cannot be tolerated is the 
Federal Government abusing its authority to target entire industries, 
including those that obey the laws and live within the rules.
  This isn't a Republican issue; this isn't a Democratic issue; it 
isn't a liberal or a conservative issue. This is an issue of the DOJ, 
FDIC, and potentially other banking regulators stepping outside the 
law.
  We worked on a bipartisan basis to inform the DOJ, FDIC, and others 
of the consequences of Operation Choke Point, but those concerns have 
fallen on deaf ears. Operation Choke Point is still happening. In the 
last few months, I have heard from a debt buyer in California, a 
tobacco shop in Florida, and, just this week, a veteran-owned shooting 
sports company in Virginia.
  I am now concerned that Operation Choke Point-like tactics have 
spread beyond the FDIC to the Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency. Despite Comptroller Curry's remarks on the dangers of de-
risking, we continue to hear from financial institutions that OCC 
examiners are applying pressure in an effort to force banks to drop 
longstanding customers and correspondent banking relationships for no 
valid reason.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that similar amendments to 
prohibit the use of funds for Operation Choke Point were attached 
without opposition to appropriations bills in fiscal years 2015 and 
2016. In February, the House passed a bipartisan vote of 250-169 H.R. 
766, the Financial Institution

[[Page H4515]]

Customer Protection Act. That legislation included measures that would 
prohibit Operation Choke Point through increased transparency and 
responsible governance.
  This amendment is an important step in ensuring that the FDIC and 
other Federal banking regulators continue their job, but do so without 
abuse of power.
  I ask my colleagues for their support of this amendment which, again, 
has generated no opposition and has been adopted by voice vote in 
previous years.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, at the behest of the House Republicans' 
inquiry, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional 
Responsibility investigated whether there was misconduct or targeting 
of legal businesses by Operation Choke Point. The DOJ's OPR, in their 
report from last year, found that absolutely no wrongdoing had 
occurred.
  The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility ``concluded that the 
Department of Justice attorneys involved in Operation Choke Point did 
not engage in professional misconduct,'' and that, ``OPR's inquiry 
further determined that Civil Division employees did not improperly 
target lawful participants.''
  Moreover, a follow-on report from the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation inspector general found that the FDIC's involvement in 
Operation Choke Point was inconsequential to the direction and outcome 
of the initiative.
  Operation Choke Point is an enforcement action by the Department of 
Justice, whose funding is not addressed by this particular 
appropriations bill. In fact, that is part of the large problem with 
this amendment--that it really speaks to issues that belong in another 
bill.
  What this provision really does is tell the banking regulators not to 
cooperate with law enforcement when the Department of Justice has 
identified mass market fraud and other abuses of the payments system.
  The Department of Justice has made it a priority to hold the 
perpetrators of consumer fraud accountable. Recently, for example, they 
prosecuted the operators of lottery scams, the promoters of fake 
business opportunities, and the criminals behind a telemarketing fraud 
targeting Spanish-speaking customers.
  Preventing banking regulators from cooperating with legitimate law 
enforcement requests would restrict the ability of the Civil Division's 
Consumer Protection Branch in enforcing consumer protection statutes 
throughout the United States.
  Operation Choke Point is just one of the Consumer Protection Branch's 
efforts that require cooperation with banking regulators and which have 
produced significant results.

                              {time}  1645

  For example, the Branch, together with U.S. Attorneys across the 
country, obtained over 150 criminal convictions and more than $7 
billion in criminal fines, forfeitures, and restitution ordered to 
victims. Limiting the funding it receives would be a serious blow to 
consumers who need the protection of the government from the financial 
predators.
  This is something that we should not be doing at this point. We, 
certainly, shouldn't be doing it in this bill, but we shouldn't be 
doing it at all. I urge its opposition.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chair, as somebody who has been on both sides of 
the table with regard to financial services--as a regulator and on the 
other side of the table as a businessperson--I think I have a unique 
perspective on what is going on here.
  We also have a couple of reports from the Oversight and Government 
Reform Committee that took the emails of both of these agencies--their 
own emails--and showed them to be engaged in Operation Choke Point 
activities with the intent not to go after somebody who is doing 
something illegal, but to go after people who are doing something 
legal. That is the difference.
  I support, as the gentleman indicated a minute ago, some of the 
activities of the regulators in going after bad actors. I support that 
110 percent. As a former regulator, I am with the gentleman all the 
way. My problem is what is going on with Operation Choke Point as we 
are going after legal businesses that are doing legal business. That is 
a big difference because their own emails indicate their own, internal 
attorneys--the legal authorities in their own agencies--questioned 
their own ability to be doing what they are doing.
  This should send a chill down the spine of every single American when 
you have the Department of Justice's own attorneys telling them we 
shouldn't be doing this because this is not legal. Yet this is the 
legal entity that is supposed to be leading our country and providing 
us protection with the law, itself.
  It is interesting because the FDIC has already implemented a lot of 
these changes that we requested in our bill. In committee--and to me, 
personally--they admitted what was going on and said: We are going to 
fix our problems. They admitted Operation Choke Point was going on and 
that they were targeting legal businesses that were doing legal 
business. They said: We can't have that. We are going to stop it. The 
problem is it is continuing to go on, as I indicated in my testimony.
  Just this week, there was another one. I have an email address that 
takes information from individuals who have been wronged by Operation 
Choke Point activities. They are in legal businesses, doing legal 
business. And we got another hit just this week. Over the last several 
months, we have had numerous hits from different businesses across the 
country. Yet we have continued to see this happen.
  I ask for the support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-639 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 22 by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
  Amendment No. 23 by Mr. Buck of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 25 by Mr. Davidson of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 28 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 29 by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 31 by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 32 by Mr. Guinta of New Hampshire.
  Amendment No. 34 by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 35 by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 38 by Mr. King of Iowa.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 241, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 377]

                               AYES--182

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat

[[Page H4516]]


     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--241

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Granger
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Harper
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bost
     Brown (FL)
     Delaney
     Hastings
     Lieu, Ted
     Nadler
     Nugent
     Rooney (FL)
     Takai
     Turner

                              {time}  1711

  Messrs. WOMACK, HIMES, MEEKS, Ms. BASS, Messrs. REED, ROGERS of 
Kentucky, Ms. McCOLLUM, and Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. MULLIN, TROTT, and ROYCE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Buck

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The unfinished business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 224, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 378]

                               AYES--197

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     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)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--224

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers (NC)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Granger
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda

[[Page H4517]]


     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pittenger
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bost
     Brown (FL)
     Delaney
     Guinta
     Hastings
     Lieu, Ted
     Marchant
     Nadler
     Nugent
     Rooney (FL)
     Takai
     Turner


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Davidson

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Davidson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217, 
noes 203, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 379]

                               AYES--217

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     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)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--203

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     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
     Hanna
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     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)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bost
     Brown (FL)
     Delaney
     Hastings
     Lieu, Ted
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Nugent
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Takai
     Turner
     Williams
  Announcement by the Acting Chair
  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1718

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 379, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Garrett

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Garrett) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 243, 
noes 180, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 380]

                               AYES--243

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr

[[Page H4518]]


     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     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
     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

                               NOES--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     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
     Hanna
     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
     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)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     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)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bost
     Brown (FL)
     Delaney
     Hastings
     Lieu, Ted
     Nadler
     Nugent
     Rooney (FL)
     Takai
     Turner


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1721

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Garrett

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Garrett) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 182, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 381]

                               AYES--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     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
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     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
     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
     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

                               NOES--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     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
     Hanna

[[Page H4519]]


     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     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)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     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)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bost
     Brown (FL)
     Delaney
     DeSaulnier
     Duncan (SC)
     Hastings
     Jordan
     Nadler
     Nugent
     Rooney (FL)
     Takai
     Turner


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1724

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Gosar) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 182, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 382]

                               AYES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     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
     Upton
     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

                               NOES--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Esty
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     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)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bost
     Brat
     Brown (FL)
     Delaney
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Hastings
     Nadler
     Nugent
     Rooney (FL)
     Sinema
     Takai
     Turner
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1727

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Guinta

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Guinta) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 260, 
noes 162, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 383]

                               AYES--260

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Boustany
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw

[[Page H4520]]


     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     Keating
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lipinski
     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
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pascrell
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     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

                               NOES--162

     Adams
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     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
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     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)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Buchanan
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bost
     Brown (FL)
     Delaney
     Hastings
     Nadler
     Nugent
     Rooney (FL)
     Sinema
     Takai
     Turner


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1730

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Huizenga) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 188, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 384]

                               AYES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     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
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     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
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--188

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     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
     Hanna
     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

[[Page H4521]]


     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bost
     Brown (FL)
     Delaney
     Hastings
     Nadler
     Nugent
     Rooney (FL)
     Takai
     Turner


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1734

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Huizenga) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 185, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 385]

                               AYES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     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
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     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
     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

                               NOES--185

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Katko
     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)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     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)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bishop (GA)
     Bost
     Brown (FL)
     Curbelo (FL)
     Delaney
     Hastings
     Mica
     Nadler
     Nugent
     Rooney (FL)
     Takai
     Turner


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1737

  Ms. FOXX changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 232, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 386]

                               AYES--192

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)

[[Page H4522]]


     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Trott
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--232

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurd (TX)
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bost
     Brown (FL)
     Delaney
     Hastings
     Nadler
     Nugent
     Rooney (FL)
     Takai
     Turner

                              {time}  1741

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Carter of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, 
Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 5485) making appropriations for financial services and 
general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and 
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________