Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 89 (Tuesday, May 23, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 23, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4433-H4440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 953, REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS
ACT OF 2017

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 348 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 348

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 953) to amend the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent
regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near
navigable waters, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 115-21. That amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are
waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I found myself listening to the Reading
Clerk as he read through the rule. It is a fairly straightforward rule,
but it sounded pretty complicated as he was going through it. And I am
reminded that

[[Page H4434]]

standing to your left is one of the gentlemen that helps us sort
through those issues.
As every Member of this institution knows, who was listening to the
colloquy last week, Brian Cooper is leaving this House after 35 years
of public service, honorable service, showing up day in and day out. My
friend, Mr. McGovern, and I, working on the Rules Committee, sometimes
go until 2, 3, or 4 in the morning. Well, folks like Mr. Cooper can't
go home until the Rules Committee goes home.
So day in and day out, with absolutely no pomp or circumstance, just
dedicated public service, Brian Cooper served this institution. I fear
this will be the last time he and I are on the floor together while I
have control of the microphone. And I did not want to yield control of
that microphone without telling how much his assistance has meant to
me.
You know, Mr. Speaker, standing in that chair is a powerful
responsibility. The burden sometimes is a lot to bear. When you are
surrounded by a team of excellence, as you are today, with Ethan to
your right and Brian to your left, I know you do that with great
confidence. I am grateful to folks who help us to succeed.
Thank you, Mr. Cooper, for all of that service.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 348 is a structured rule. It provides
for consideration of H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of
2017. It makes in order two amendments from my Democratic colleagues--
one from Ms. Esty and one from Mr. Huffman.
As you might remember, the House passed a nearly identical version of
this bill last year, Mr. Speaker, but, unfortunately, it did not get
across the finish line in the Senate, so it did not make it to the
President's desk. We are trying again this year. My sincere hope is
that we will succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you hear from constituents, as I do, talking
about regulatory burdens, and why can't we bring commonsense rules and
regulations to Washington. H.R. 953, the bill that this rule would make
in order, is an attempt to do that.
This bill prohibits the EPA from requiring unnecessary and
duplicative pollution permits for certain pesticides. Now, so often
when we start a sentence with ``this prevents the EPA,'' folks think:
Oh, there go those Republicans again going after the environment,
waiving those regulations that protect friends and family.
Well, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that accusation is never accurate.
But, in particular, it fails to address this situation.
For decade upon decade, the EPA has regulated pesticides in this
country. If we pass H.R. 953 today, for decades and decades to come,
the EPA will continue to regulate pesticides in this country.
As a result of litigation, Mr. Speaker, the courts are forcing the
EPA not to regulate pesticides as pesticides, but to regulate
pesticides as pollutant discharges, as if there is something else to do
with pesticides other than to spray it.
They are saying that you can't just get a permit to use your
pesticide, Mr. Speaker. You can't just read the label and the proper
application and get a permit to apply, as indicated on the label. You
must also get a permit to discharge a pollutant as if the pesticide is
not already regulated as a pesticide itself.
Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense. The good news is I am surround by a
team of excellence here in the United States House of Representatives
and, in a bipartisan way, we have already agreed that it makes no
sense.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, we brought a substantially similar
measure to the floor, and we passed it under a process called
suspension of the rules. It is a process we save for those bills that
are relatively noncontroversial. It passed in a bipartisan way, but
didn't make it across the Senate floor.
We brought it back again, Mr. Speaker, to this floor. We brought it
under a rule, as we are doing today. It passed again in a bipartisan
way. We sent it to the Senate, but couldn't make it across the Senate
floor.
Mr. Speaker, we added it to the farm bill that we passed here in the
House, which, again, passed in a bipartisan way. We sent it over to the
Senate and it was stripped out on the Senate side.
Mr. Speaker, we have come together time and time again as a body to
move this commonsense regulatory reform forward. It is my great hope
that I will get support from both sides of the aisle again today not
just on this rule, but on the underlying legislation, and that we will
move forward in a bipartisan way again.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin as well and echo what Mr. Woodall said in
praising Brian Cooper for his many decades of service to this body. We
appreciate all of his years of service. We appreciate all of the years
he drove back and forth to work from Baltimore. And we appreciate the
incredible patience that he has demonstrated over the years by having
to listen to us time and time again.

One of the great joys of serving in this body is that you meet some
remarkable people. Brian Cooper is certainly a remarkable person, and
he will be missed. And I think on behalf of everybody here, we want to
say: thank you.
Mr. Speaker, let me rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the
underlying legislation.
My colleague, Mr. Woodall, just referenced all of the times we passed
it, it went over to the Senate, and it didn't go anywhere. Maybe we
should take a hint from the Senate that it is not a good bill and we
ought to kind of reconsider some of the aspects of this bill.
But here we are again on the House floor with yet another regulatory
rollback. It is shameful that the leadership of this House continues to
waste precious time on bills that seem to address the concerns of Big
Industry over the needs of our constituents, especially as we have so
much that needs to be accomplished.
By the way, whatever happened to regular order? Do you remember when
committees held hearings and markups?
The Agriculture Committee, on which I serve, did not hold a hearing.
It held a markup, but it did not hold a hearing. And the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee, the committee with primary jurisdiction
over this bill, held no hearing and did no markup.
And let's talk about amendments. The majority made in order less than
half of the amendments submitted--two amendments--but they blocked
through completely germane amendments. Members jumped through all of
the hoops, they dotted all of the Is, and they crossed all of the Ts.
These were properly drafted amendments, and they were blocked because
the Republican majority was afraid to vote on them.
Now, what were these amendments?
Well, an amendment to prohibit the discharge of toxics in such
circumstances where they would be harmful to pregnant women or harm
fetal or early childhood development. The amendment protects pregnant
women and children. Blocked.
An amendment to create an exception for communities that use a source
of drinking water where a Federal or State emergency declaration has
been issued due to a threat to public health, such as heightened
exposure to an identified contaminant. Blocked.
An amendment to ensure existing Clean Water Act protections apply to
waters that a State has already determined are polluted by pesticides.
Blocked.
They were blocked because they would have passed.
Why are my colleagues afraid of protecting pregnant women, and
ensuring clean drinking water?
That is what these amendments were about. They were germane. The only
reason why they are not in order is because you chose to block them in
the Rules Committee.
I would say to my Republican friends: You are not running this
institution. You are ruining this institution. This is supposed to be a
deliberative body. Let's start acting like it. And that means bringing
germane amendments to the floor, letting us have a debate, letting
Republicans and

[[Page H4435]]

Democrats debate, and then vote on those amendments.
There is not a single reason at all other than the fact that the
Republican leadership did not want these amendments to pass that they
were not made in order. That is not the way this place is supposed to
work.
And speaking of a bad process, late last week, Billy House at
Bloomberg News broke the news that the House may need to vote again on
this devastating TrumpCare bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article by Billy House.

[From www.bloomberg.com, May 18, 2017]

House May Need To Vote Again on GOP Obamacare Repeal Bill

(By Billy House)

House Republicans barely managed to pass their Obamacare
repeal bill earlier this month, and they now face the
possibility of having to vote again on their controversial
health measure.
House Speaker Paul Ryan hasn't yet sent the bill to the
Senate because there's a chance that parts of it may need to
be redone, depending on how the Congressional Budget Office
estimates its effects. House leaders want to make sure the
bill conforms with Senate rules for reconciliation, a
mechanism that allows Senate Republicans to pass the bill
with a simple majority.
Republicans had rushed to vote on the health bill so the
Senate could get a quick start on it, even before the CBO had
finished analyzing a series of last-minute changes. The CBO
is expected to release an updated estimate next week.
``Unaware,'' said Representative Jeff Denham of California,
with noticeable surprise Thursday, when advised that his
party leaders still hadn't sent the bill over to the Senate.
Denham was one of the House Republicans who ended up voting
for the measure, after earlier in the week opposing it.
``I am on the whip team and we have a lot of conversations,
but we have not had that one. So I am going to look into
it,'' said Denham, a member of the party's vote-counting
team.

Downplaying Concern

One senior GOP aide downplayed any concern over the
potential trouble from the CBO report, depicting it as
hypothetical, and saying that leaders will cross that bridge
if they need to.
According to several aides and other procedural experts, if
Republicans send the bill to the Senate now and the CBO later
concludes it doesn't save at least $2 billion, it would doom
the bill and Republicans would have to start their repeal
effort all over with a new budget resolution. Congressional
rules would likely prevent Republicans from fixing the bill
after it's in the Senate, the aides said.
In the Senate, the bill must hit separate $1 billion
deficit reduction targets in the jurisdiction of the Finance
Committee and the chamber's health committee. Republican
aides said failing to meet those numbers would force the
House to fix the bill even if the legislation meets the
overall cost-savings target.
If Republican leaders hold onto the bill until the CBO
report is released, then Ryan and his team could still redo
it if necessary. That would require at least one more House
vote of some sort.
Ryan told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Friday
that he doesn't think the House will need to vote again on
the health law. ``We just want to, out of an abundance of
caution, wait to send the bill over to the Senate when we get
the final score,'' Ryan said.
That vote could be cloaked in some kind of arcane
procedural move, but it would still be depicted as a proxy
for yet another vote on the same bill--and reluctant
Republicans will once again be forced to decide whether to
back it. Only this time, they would also be saddled with the
CBO's latest findings about the bill's costs and impacts.
Republicans had a sizable deficit reduction cushion--$150
billion--before several amendments were added to the bill at
the last minute, including changes allowing states to
legalize much skimpier health insurance plans.

Budget Assumptions

It's unclear what assumptions the CBO will make about what
states will do with that newly created flexibility. If
millions of people sign up for much cheaper, minimal
insurance, that could trigger billions--and potentially even
hundreds of billions--in costs over a decade because of the
House bill's health insurance tax credits.
``We've got to wait for the CBO score,'' said Greg Walden
of Oregon, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee, which authored much of the bill. ``To prove that
you meet the reconciliation test.''
But other senior Republicans weren't aware that leaders had
been holding onto the bill.
``I had no idea,'' Dennis Ross of Florida, another member
of the vote-counting team, said Thursday, adding that the
prospect of another vote ``does concern me.''
GOP leaders never said publicly they were planning to hold
on to the bill for two weeks or longer.

Democrats' Criticism

``Every school child knows that when you pass a bill in the
House, you send it to the Senate,'' said Louise Slaughter,
the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee. ``You
don't hide it in a drawer somewhere for two weeks, while you
wait for information that you should have had before you
passed it.''
The speaker and other Republicans urgently pushed their May
4 floor vote, despite a polarized Republican conference,
using the frantic final hours to win over holdouts. Even so,
20 Republicans still voted against the bill. After the bill
squeaked through, Ryan and other senior Republicans dashed to
the White House for an unusual celebration of a one-chamber
vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure everyone understands
that. We thought we were through with it here in the House, but we may
not be. After Republicans used emergency procedures on more than one
occasion to rush their bill through the House of Representatives, we
found out that Republican leaders had yet to send a bill over to the
Senate for its consideration. Instead, they have been hiding the bill
for nearly 3 weeks.
What happened to the urgency that my colleagues were talking about a
few weeks ago?
We heard from our Republican friends that the sky would fall if we
didn't act upon TrumpCare immediately. It had to be done right then and
there. We couldn't slow down long enough to hear from the nonpartisan
experts at the Congressional Budget Office. We couldn't slow down
enough so that people could actually read what was in the bill. We
couldn't slow down enough to do hearings or to get estimates on how
this massive bill would impact the healthcare of millions of Americans.
I think it has become clear to all of us, Mr. Speaker, that the only
reason to rush through this process was to trick their own Members into
voting for this disastrous bill. It was to keep their Members from
seeing the CBO score before they voted for the bill, because if they
had seen it, many of them may not have voted for it. Republican
leadership couldn't risk transparency, and they wouldn't let the facts
get in the way of passing TrumpCare.
We expect CBO to release their final analysis tomorrow. Finally, we
will know how many millions of Americans will be kicked off of their
healthcare because of these reckless and heartless Republican policies.
We will find out how devastating this bill will be for millions of
Americans with preexisting conditions. And we will finally learn just
how big that tax cut for wealthy Americans is going to be.
I guess my question to Republican leaders of this House is: What was
the rush? If you were going to have to hold up the bill over here until
the CBO score was released anyway, why couldn't we just have waited to
receive this very important information before we asked the House to
vote on this terrible bill?
Oh, wait. I know why the Republican leadership needed to move
TrumpCare so fast, so that the bill's namesake--President Trump--didn't
throw a temper tantrum. That is what this was all about. So he wouldn't
call them out in one of his infamous Twitter rants.

{time} 1245

But it wasn't about good legislating. It was a lousy process
basically designed to prematurely shove a bill through that is bad for
Americans, all for some headline or temporary political gain.
Now, if you have been watching the news lately, you will notice that
our 45th President hasn't been generating the best headlines, what with
``this Russia thing''--those are his words--constant leaks of
information from his staff to the press, never mind the President's
leaking of sensitive classified information on national security
matters.
President Trump needed a win for himself, even if it is a loss for
the American people. As we all know, it is all about him.
Now, I remind my Republican colleagues that they work for the
American people, that the ultimate boss for all of us is our
constituents, not the President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has made a habit of completely
skirting regular order and rushing through legislation crafted behind
closed doors with no opportunity for meaningful debate and
consideration, and this TrumpCare bill is a prime example.

[[Page H4436]]

We had emergency meetings, backroom deals, and fixes to the fixes to
the fixes, and what we were left with is a lousy product that we may
have to consider again. My Republican colleagues should be ashamed of
themselves.
Process matters. We are on the Rules Committee. If you don't believe
process matters, you ought to get on a different committee. It matters
for the integrity of this institution, and it matters if we are to
prevent lousy legislation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about the Trump budget
that was just released this morning.
We are still digging through the text and combing through the
details, but from what we have already seen, it is devastating. Reports
indicate that this budget makes the deepest cuts to Federal programs
that help the most vulnerable, the poorest of the poor. Mr. Speaker,
that is nothing to be proud of.
At a time when our crumbling infrastructure needs repair, our kids
need access to affordable education, and our workers need training to
move into high-tech jobs, we simply cannot afford to turn our back on
these critical investments that will move our country forward. But this
budget plan does just that.
Since we are on the floor to talk about an antienvironment bill
today, I should note that the Environmental Protection Agency is among
the agencies hardest hit by President Trump's ruthless proposal.
Through massive cuts to the EPA, the Trump administration is paving the
way toward dirtier air and more polluted water. But my Republican
colleagues don't seem to be too concerned with that. They have been
proposing cuts to EPA for years and years and years.
Mr. Speaker, of all the rotten provisions tucked into this document--
and I could go on and on and on--I find the most troubling to be the
radical assault on people living in poverty.
You know, it is easy to sit in an office at OMB and concoct plans to
throw people off of SNAP and off of Medicaid and kick them out of their
housing. This plan does just that. By any reading, by any measure, that
is what it does. We are reading about a $274 billion cut to our safety
net, on top of the over $800 billion cut to Medicaid included in the
TrumpCare bill.
These are real people, Mr. Speaker. They are our constituents. They
are our neighbors and our friends. Our kids go to school together.
But given some of the proposals I have seen from this majority party,
I have to wonder whether some of my colleagues might never have talked
with anyone living in poverty. I would say to them, life is very
different when you leave your country club. Life is very different. It
is very hard for people struggling in poverty. Being poor in this
country is hard work, and you ought to know that by now.
My Republican colleagues have made a habit of belittling the poor
instead of trying to understand their struggles. They work hard, Mr.
Speaker--often at more than one job--to put food on the table for their
kids and to find a roof over their heads. They are exhausted from work
and from worry.
We see them every day, serving tables, washing dishes, hauling away
trash, cleaning offices, mowing lawns, stacking heavy loads, taking
care of people's children, comforting the sick. Theirs are the faces in
the bus windows going home from work at 2 in the morning. Theirs are
the faces arriving at work at 5 in the morning the next day. They
deserve our respect, not the disdain shown to them and to their
families in this disgraceful budget.
I would like to remind my colleagues that poverty and hunger in rural
areas is often as bad as, and sometimes even worse than, in cities. So
I find it highly offensive that this budget slashes our safety net for
the very people that President Trump promised to protect, the very
people who put President Trump in office.
You know, I heard some of the rationale for this budget from the
White House, saying: Well, you know, people who are on SNAP ought to
work.
Well, let me just say for the Record so it is clear to everybody here
that the majority of people on SNAP are children, are senior citizens,
are people who are disabled. Of those who can work, a majority of them
work. They work, but they earn so little that they are still stuck in
poverty.
Why aren't we having a debate about increasing wages in this country?
Why is the debate focused on how we make the lives of those in poverty
even more miserable?
You know, budgets are moral documents, and this is the most
heartless, reckless, and damaging plan I have ever seen. It is immoral.
The President's Budget Director talked yesterday about compassion for
taxpayers and for Trump supporters. Well, give me a break. You know, I
would tell Mr. Mulvaney I don't think that word means what he think it
means.
Compassion, that is feeding starving children, helping a father get
back on his feet after a job loss, helping a mother get back on her
feet after a job loss, cleaning up poisoned water, ensuring everyone
has a chance at living a healthy life regardless of how much money they
have. That is compassion, not turning our backs on these people.
Tax cuts for the wealthiest among us at the expense of the public
safety net is cruel. It is coldhearted and, Mr. Speaker, I am sick of
it. I assure you that is not compassionate.
So I hope my Republican colleagues will have the courage to stand up
against this administration and do what is right for the American
people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Massachusetts
I do not have any speakers remaining, and I reserve the balance of my
time to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Throughout his campaign, President Trump made promises that he would
not cut Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Now we have come to
find out that he has broken every one of those promises.
The Trump budget includes more than $800 billion in Medicaid cuts in
the GOP healthcare bill and then adds additional cuts on top of that,
with total Medicaid cuts of over $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
Furthermore, the Trump budget guts Social Security disability
insurance which, as of 2015, covered 10 million recipients.
The Trump budget also slashes funding for SNAP, our Nation's first
line of defense against hunger, by $193 billion. That is a 25 percent
cut. SNAP is the program that provides people food. That's it--food.
We have 42 million people in this country who are food insecure--42
million. We should all be ashamed of that. And the answer is to cut
SNAP by 25 percent?
Oh, and by the way, the average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per person per
meal.
And let's not forget that the Republicans' healthcare disaster takes
$75 billion out of the Medicare trust fund, shortening the life of the
trust fund.
Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. I appreciate that. I would like to inquire of the
Speaker: Is my friend from Massachusetts working on my yielded time or
is he working on his time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is on his own time.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend.
Mr. McGOVERN. If the gentleman wants to yield me some of his time, I
am more than happy to go on for as long as you would like.
Mr. WOODALL. If my friend would yield, I was advised that I had
yielded an abundance of time. I just wanted to make sure that I was not
being more generous than you and I would have intended.
Mr. McGOVERN. So, Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that, instead of
protecting our most vulnerable, President Trump and the House
Republicans continually insist on tax breaks for big corporations and
the wealthiest Americans.
Mr. Speaker, we need to hold President Trump to his word. Therefore,
I am asking that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat the
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would
change the rules of the House to prevent any legislation from being
considered if it would result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits
under the Social Security Act, if it would increase either the early or
full retirement age to receive Social Security benefits.

[[Page H4437]]

This would prevent any legislation from being considered if it would
privatize Social Security. We would prevent any legislation from being
considered that would result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits for
individuals entitled to or enrolled for benefits under Medicare or
result in a reduction of benefits or eligibility for individuals
enrolled in or eligible to receive medical assistance through a State
Medicaid plan or waiver.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say to my colleagues
that I urge everybody in this House to remember why we came to Congress
and who sent us here. Our primary obligation is to the people of this
country, and they did not send us here to make their lives more
miserable.
When you look at the priorities in the President's budget, when you
look at the impact that the healthcare bill, the TrumpCare bill that
the House of Representatives passed, when you look at the impact it is
going to have on tens of millions of Americans in this country, these
bills will devastate people.
So we need to get back to what is important. It is not about propping
up the President during his difficulties. It is not about playing to
the cheap seats at the Heritage Foundation or some other rightwing
think tank. Our primary obligation is to people of the United States.
This budget and the priorities of this Republican majority and the
priorities of this President undercut the security and the economic
well-being of every single person in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to defeat the
previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to recognize that, if you locked my friend from Massachusetts
and me in a room together, it would be over both of our objections, but
we would be able to solve about 50 percent of the challenges that face
this country.
There is something different that happens in conversation and
dialogue when the cameras are turned off than happens when the cameras
are on, and of course we are going to keep these cameras here on the
floor of the House for as long as you and I are here because the
American people have a right to see and a right to know.
But just like Mom and Dad don't want to have all their conversations
in front of the kids, and the kids certainly don't want to have all of
their conversations in front of Mom and Dad, there is a role to be
played for folks to be able to close the door and sit down and visit
with each other and try to make things better.
My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right. The only job that
we have is to make a difference for our constituency back home.
Sometimes we legitimately disagree on how to do that. The budget is a
good example.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, President Obama, in his 8 years as
President of the United States, never once introduced a budget that
balanced. He borrowed from our children and our grandchildren in every
single budget.
And when I say he didn't introduce a budget that balanced, I don't
mean that he didn't balance in year 1, I don't mean he didn't balance
in year 10. I mean never, ever, ever looking forward in his budgets did
he ever stop borrowing.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a man or woman in this institution who
believes that you can run a country that way. There is not one. There
is not a man or woman in this institution who doesn't understand that
balancing budgets is going to mean hard decisions, and so it is
absolutely the right place for the dialog about what those hard
decisions should be.
But let us not be confused for one moment. There is no pathway to
balance that isn't hard. Borrowing from your children and your
grandchildren to pay for what you want today is always going to be
easier, Mr. Speaker, than paying for it yourself. We are going to have
to have that conversation.
I agree with my friend from Massachusetts. We do not work for the
President of the United States in this institution. If anything, he
works for us.
I sit on the House Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, and I promise you,
we are promulgating our own House budget, a work product that is going
to make this institution proud. I am particularly pleased to be working
with Budget Committee Chairwoman Diane Black on that budget, even as we
speak.

{time} 1300

Mr. Speaker, it will balance by making commonsense changes to Federal
programs, one of which is included in this bill here today.
Take the EPA, for example. Mr. Speaker, I encourage you, if you have
not read the comments of our new EPA Administrator, to get into those
because what he would tell you, which is absolutely true, is that we
have Superfund sites in this country that are so polluted they cannot
be utilized for other purposes.
They have been on the Superfund list for decades through Republican
Presidents and through Democratic Presidents. They have been sitting on
that list. There is no plan to clean them up, no plan to make a
difference in those communities, and no plan to serve those
constituencies. That is wrong.
Instead of spending its time and resources making a difference for
families, making a difference for the environment, what is the EPA
having to do?
Respond to court cases that tell it to treat the reasonable and
labeled application of pesticides; not as spraying pesticides in your
field, but as if you were operating a factory and just having as an
effluent, pesticide flowing out of your factory. That is just nonsense.
The reason we produced pesticides is to spray it in fields. We do not
need an effluent discharge permit as if we are running a factory,
pumping it into our streams. We are not. We are spraying it on our
plants to do what?
Address the food needs of this Nation.
My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right when he talks about
hunger in this Nation, Mr. Speaker. He is absolutely right. I dare say
that there is not a community in this country that is not affected by
hunger. But the biggest advocate we have in the fight against hunger is
the American farmer, Mr. Speaker.
There is nobody in the world who does it better; there is nobody in
the world who produces it cheaper; there is nobody in the world that
has the capability of producing the food to go on the grocery store
shelves in America except the American farmer. And these pesticides and
herbicides make a difference in getting that food out of the field and
onto those store shelves.
We want to do it with strict EPA regulation. That is what is lost in
this debate. There is not one Member of this body that wants to repeal
EPA regulation. We want to keep that EPA regulation. It is called
FIFRA, that regulation that pesticides are regulated under. No one
wants to change that at all.
All folks want to do is say: Wait a minute, this is not a factory
discharge issue. This is a pesticide issue.
My friend from Massachusetts is absolutely right. I sit on the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Speaker. We did not
have a hearing or a markup on this bill, and it was absolutely referred
to our committee.
Why, Mr. Speaker?
It was referred to our committee because we have jurisdiction over
the Clean Water Act, but this has never been a Clean Water Act issue,
except the courts tried to make it one. This has never been a Clean
Water Act issue, except the litigants tried to make it one. So when we
tried to fix the problem, we didn't waste a moment in the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee dealing with the Clean
Water Act because this has never been a Clean Water Act issue. It is an
ag issue, which is why it went through my friend of Massachusetts'
Agriculture Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I don't begrudge anyone the job that they have to do in
this institution. We have different constituencies. They ask different
things of us.

[[Page H4438]]

We all have to come and do our work. But I will tell you what, Mr.
Speaker, everything doesn't have to be an us-against-them battle.
Sometimes it is just about us. Sometimes there is more that unites this
country than divides this country, and that is okay. Sometimes we are
able to work together on commonsense solutions, and that is okay.
Mr. Speaker, when this bill came to the House under suspension of the
rules, again, that process that we use for things that are
noncontroversial, my friend from Massachusetts supported it at that
time. He supported it because it is good legislation that is going to
make a difference for folks back home. It is going to make a difference
in combating hunger in every jurisdiction across this Nation.
When this bill went through the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Speaker,
there were no amendments offered. The Agriculture Committee is composed
of Republicans and Democrats. It is a place where discussion takes
place. It was the markup of this bill, which is when you go and try to
amend it and make it better. Not one amendment was offered from either
side.
Why?
Because we have discussed this issue, we have litigated this issue,
and we have worked together on this issue, and it is a collaborative
work product.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that a
number of amendments that are germane were offered in the Rules
Committee to protect the health and safety of women and children, and
they were not made in order. So amendments were offered and they were
blocked. I just point that out for the Record.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend. He is absolutely right. When the
experts on the Agriculture Committee considered this, when the folks
who spend their entire careers on Capitol Hill working on pesticide and
pesticide safety considered this, they had absolutely no amendments to
offer whatsoever.
When it came to the Rules Committee and the entire House could offer
amendments, folks absolutely offered amendments. The Rules Committee,
on which the gentleman from Massachusetts and I serve, made two of
those amendments in order. We rejected others. You heard my friend's
opening statement, Mr. Speaker, that one of the amendments we rejected
was to protect pregnant women.
Well, Mr. Speaker, for Pete's sake, I have served with these men and
women in here. I have been in this body for 6 years. There is not one
Member of this institution who doesn't care about pregnant women. There
is not one Member of this institution who doesn't care about children.
There is not one Member of this institution who doesn't care. What we
do in this institution is care. And when my friend from Massachusetts
supported this bill, when he supported this bill, there were no
amendments along those lines.
When the gentleman supported this bill without the amendment dealing
particularly with pregnant women and children, I don't believe for a
moment the gentleman forgot about those pregnant women and children. I
don't believe for a moment he decided he was going to punish pregnant
women and children. I believe that he thought those protections were
inherent in the base text, and he was right when he thought it, and he
was right when he supported it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. I would just say that the bill has changed over the
years, and I voted against it in committee.
I guess the question is: If we are all in agreement that we want to
protect women and children, what was the harm in making in order an
amendment that would have done that?
It was perfectly germane, and the Rules Committee decided not to make
it in order. I think that is a question that the gentleman hasn't
answered.
I appreciate that all the people on the Agriculture Committee are
experts, but you know what?
There are other people who know a lot about science, pesticides, and
agriculture who were not on the committee. And just because a committee
takes action--I mean, if that is the new rule now: if you are on the
committee, you can't offer amendments. Well, that is an unfortunate new
approach that the Republicans are taking.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I will tell my friend two things
that he already knows. Number one is we do accept amendments from the
entire Congress. That is the purpose of the Rules Committee being in
existence, and we have added two amendments to this bill for
consideration.
When the gentleman supported it in the 112th Congress, we considered
no other amendments. That is a change this time. We are going to do
that. When it passed the last time we did a rule, no one offered any
amendments. This is a change from that time. When we passed it in the
Agriculture bill, no one offered any amendments. So it is a change this
time. We absolutely are opening up the process more and more with every
time the House considers this bill.
But I would also tell my friend something that we are going to have
to grapple with as an institution, and that is that I don't need a
Rules Committee if what we are going to do is make every amendment that
comes to this institution in order.
The only reason we have a Rules Committee is to pick and choose. The
only reason we have a Rules Committee is to set up a timetable on which
we can debate and consider things in a reasonable manner. The only
reason we have a Rules Committee is because we are not operating under
unanimous consent as our friends in the Senate do, though we absolutely
could. And I would refer him to my friend, Daniel Webster, who has some
marvelous ideas about how we might do that.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is legitimate for folks back home to
wonder what is going on in that United States House. They passed it in
a bipartisan way once. They passed it in a bipartisan way twice. They
passed it in a bipartisan way three times, and here it is on the floor
today, and it is as if the sky is falling and going to open up and
swallow everything that is good and decent about this land.
Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Why is that the conversation we are having
today instead of the one we had not once, not twice, but three times
about how we could use this legislation to improve the lives of
citizens across this country?
Perhaps that is just the environment we are in. Perhaps that is just
the cards we have been dealt in politics across America today, Mr.
Speaker, but we have a chance together as an institution to stand up
and say it does not have to be that way. We have a chance together to
stand up and say that we can do better than those partisan shenanigans.
We can get together on things that are going to make a difference, and
the first opportunity you are going to have after this speech, Mr.
Speaker, to do that, is in supporting the rule for this bill. The first
opportunity we are going to have to do that is in supporting this rule,
and then supporting the underlying legislation and sending it back to
the Senate one more time. It is the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker, and
we have the opportunity to do that together.
Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the rule and the underlying
bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment To Be Offered to H. Res. 348 by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
section:
Sec. 2. Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following
new clause:

RESTRICTIONS ON CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION THAT WOULD BREAK DONALD
TRUMP'S PROMISE NOT TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, OR MEDICAID

13. (a) It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint
resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses,
or conference report which includes any provision described
in paragraph (b).''
(b) A provision referred to in paragraph (a) is a provision
which, if enacted into law, would result in any of the
following:
(1) a reduction of guaranteed benefits scheduled under
title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.);
(2) an increase in either the early or full retirement age
for the benefits described in paragraph (1);

[[Page H4439]]

(3) a privatization of Social Security;
(4) a reduction of guaranteed benefits for individuals
entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under the Medicare
program under title XVIII of 18 such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et
seq.); or
(5) a reduction of benefits or eligibility for individuals
enrolled in, or eligible to receive medical assistance
through, a State Medicaid plan or waiver under title XIX of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 5 et seq.).
(c) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order
that waives the application of paragraph (a). As disposition
of any point of order under paragraph (a) or this paragraph
(except a point of order against an amendment pursuant to
paragraph (a)), the Chair shall put the question of
consideration with respect to the measure, order, conference
report, or rule as applicable. The question of consideration
shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiating
the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but
shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion except
one that the House adjourn.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Again, hearing the gentleman say that we all want to
protect the lives of pregnant women and children, I just want to ask as
an inquiry: Is the amendment by Eddie Bernice Johnson that prohibits
the discharge of toxins in such circumstances where they would be
harmful to pregnant women, or could harm fetal, or early childhood
development, which is perfectly germane, is that made in order? Is that
part of the rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is free to consult the Rules
Committee report.
Mr. McGOVERN. Well, I don't think it is. I would just simply say to
the gentleman, if he wants more cooperation, then maybe we ought to
open the process up, and actually listen to what the Democrats have to
say too.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 191, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 271]

YEAS--229

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NAYS--191

[[Page H4440]]

Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Black
Deutch
Hice, Jody B.
Huizenga
Johnson, Sam
Newhouse
Roybal-Allard
Simpson
Tiberi
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1333

Mr. CRIST and Mrs. DINGELL changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 271.

MOMENT OF SILENCE IN MEMORY OF THE VICTIMS OF THE TERRORIST ATTACK IN
MANCHESTER, ENGLAND

The SPEAKER. The Chair would ask that all present rise for a moment
of silence.
The Chair asks that the House now observe a moment of silence in
memory of the victims of the terrorist attack in Manchester, England.
Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 189, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 272]

AYES--232

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--189

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--9

Black
Deutch
Gaetz
Hice, Jody B.
Huizenga
Johnson, Sam
Newhouse
Tiberi
Wasserman Schultz

{time} 1342

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________