[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 21, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5013-H5016]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of 
the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed, asking 
that it be read in full concerning President Trump's tax returns.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 
     the President shall immediately disclose his tax return 
     information to the House of Representatives and the American 
     people.
       Whereas, President Nixon explained that ``People have got 
     to know whether or not their President is a crook'' when he 
     invited the Joint Committee on Taxation to audit his returns 
     after the Internal Revenue Service gave him an unwarranted 
     tax discount;
       Whereas, according to the Tax History Project, every 
     President since Gerald Ford has disclosed his tax return 
     information to the public;
       Whereas, the Chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means, 
     Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Committee on Finance 
     have the authority to request the President's tax returns 
     under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       Whereas, pursuant to Article I, section 7, clause 1 of the 
     Constitution, often referred to as the Origination Clause, 
     the House of Representatives has the sole authority to 
     initiate legislation that raises revenue for the national 
     government, and the Committee on Ways and Means is 
     considering a comprehensive reform of the Tax Code;
       Whereas, according to media reports analyzing President 
     Trump's leaked 2005 tax return, we know that had his own tax 
     plan been in place, he would have paid an estimated mere 3.48 
     percent rate instead of a 24 percent rate, saving him $31.3 
     million;
       Whereas, according to The New York Times, the President 
     used a legally dubious tax maneuver in 1995 that could have 
     allowed him to avoid paying any Federal taxes for 18 years;
       Whereas, President Trump holds ``interests as the sole or 
     principal owner in approximately 500 separate entities,'' 
     according to his attorneys, and the President's tax plan 
     proposes to cut the tax rate on such ``pass-through'' 
     entities from 39.6 percent to 15 percent;
       Whereas, one analysis estimated that President Trump would 
     personally save $6.7 million from two tax breaks included in 
     the Republicans' first tax cut, which they misleadingly call 
     the American Health Care Act;
       Whereas, without the President's tax returns, the American 
     people cannot determine how much he will personally benefit 
     from proposed changes to the Tax Code;
       Whereas, an ABCNews/Washington Post poll found that 74 
     percent of Americans would like President Trump to disclose 
     his tax returns and the most-signed petition on the White 
     House website calls for the release of the President's tax 
     return information to verify compliance with the Emoluments 
     Clause, with more than 1,097,000 signatures as of date of 
     this resolution;
       Whereas, disclosure of the President's tax returns could 
     help those investigating Russian influence in the 2016 
     election better understand the President's financial ties to 
     the Russian Federation, Russian businesses, and Russian 
     individuals;
       Whereas, after breaking his pledge to make his tax returns 
     available, President Trump instead presented a one-page 
     letter from a law firm giving him a clean bill of health on 
     any business dealings with Russians, but failed to note that 
     the very same law firm boasted of the ``prestigious honor'' 
     of being named ``Russia Law Firm of the Year'' for 2016;
       Whereas, former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director 
     James Comey, before he was fired by President Trump, publicly 
     confirmed that the Bureau has been investigating potential 
     ties between President Trump's campaign and Russia since July 
     and that the Russian President Vladimir Putin favored a Trump 
     electoral victory;
       Whereas, President Trump's son-in-law and senior advisor, 
     Jared Kushner, met during the Presidential transition at the 
     behest of the Russian Ambassador with Sergey N. Gorkov, a 
     graduate of a school run by the successor to the KGB and who 
     was appointed by Vladimir Putin to head a Russian state-owned 
     bank that is on the U.S. sanctions list;
       Whereas, Mr. Kushner proposed establishing a secret back 
     channel of communications directly to Vladimir Putin, even 
     considering the use of Russian embassy facilities to do so;
       Whereas, Attorney General Jeff Sessions falsely stated 
     during his Senate confirmation hearing that he ``did not have 
     communications with the Russians,'' when in fact he met at 
     least twice during the campaign with Russian Ambassador 
     Sergey Kislyak;
       Whereas, former Director Comey testified before the Senate 
     Intelligence Committee that President Trump had asked him in 
     the Oval Office about ``letting Flynn go,'' referring to the 
     investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael 
     Flynn's business ties to Russia;
       Whereas, President Trump stated on May 11, 2017, that he 
     had decided that he was going to fire Comey because of ``this 
     Russia thing'';
       Whereas, former Director Comey, on June 8, 2017, testified 
     that Special Counsel Robert Mueller could investigate whether 
     President Trump's actions with regard to Director Comey and 
     the Flynn investigation constituted obstruction of justice;
       Whereas, in 2013, President Trump said, ``Well, I've done a 
     lot of business with the Russians. They're smart and they're 
     tough,'' and President Trump's son, Donald Trump, Jr., told a 
     news outlet in 2008 that ``Russians make up a pretty 
     disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets'';
       Whereas, against the advice of ethics attorneys and the 
     nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics, the President has 
     refused to divest his ownership stake in his businesses;
       Whereas, the Director of the nonpartisan Office of 
     Government Ethics said that the President's plan to transfer 
     his business holdings to a trust managed by family members is 
     ``meaningless'' and ``does not meet the standards that . . . 
     every President in the past four decades has met'';
       Whereas, the Emoluments Clause was included in the 
     Constitution for the express purpose of preventing Federal 
     officials from accepting any ``present, Emolument, Office, or 
     Title . . . from any King, Prince, or foreign state'';
       Whereas, the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., 
     has hired a ``director of diplomatic sales'' to generate 
     high-priced business among foreign leaders and diplomatic 
     delegations;
       Whereas, the Joint Committee on Taxation reviewed the tax 
     returns of President Richard Nixon in 1974 and made the 
     information public;
       Whereas, the Committee on Ways and Means used the authority 
     under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in 
     2014 to make public the confidential tax information of 51 
     taxpayers;
       Whereas, the Committee on Ways and Means has now voted 
     three times along party lines to continue to cover-up 
     President Trump's tax returns;
       Whereas, the House of Representatives has now refused nine 
     times to act on President Trump's tax returns;
       Whereas, the American people have the right to know whether 
     or not their President is operating under conflicts of 
     interest related to international affairs, tax reform, 
     Government contracts, or otherwise;
       Whereas, the House of Representatives undermines its 
     dignity and the integrity of its proceedings by continuing 
     the cover-up of President Trump's tax returns: Now, 
     therefore, be it;
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives shall--
       1. Immediately request the tax return and return 
     information of Donald J. Trump for tax years 2006 through 
     2015, as provided under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, as well as the tax return and return 
     information with respect to the President's businesses of 
     each business entity disclosed by Donald J. Trump on his 
     Office of Government Ethics Form 278e, specifically each 
     corporation and each partnership within the meaning of 
     subchapter K of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 where he is listed as an officer, director, or 
     equivalent, or exercises working control; and
       2. Postpone consideration of tax reform legislation until 
     the elected Representatives of the American people in this 
     House have obtained President Trump's tax returns and return 
     information to ascertain how any changes to the Tax Code 
     might financially benefit the President.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas wish to 
present argument on the parliamentary question whether the resolution 
presents a question of the privileges of the House?
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I do wish to address the parliamentary 
question and would appreciate the opportunity to speak at this time 
about it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized on the question 
of order.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, you can certainly observe, as all the 
Members can, the many troubling events that are reflected in the 
resolution we just had read and why they do arise to the privileges of 
the House.
  Under clause 1 of rule IX, questions of the privileges of the House 
are: ``those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its 
safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.''
  This resolution seeks to protect the integrity of the proceedings of 
the House, and I believe that it is therefore privileged. There is just 
not an issue that is more fundamental to the integrity of this House, 
the people's House, than the faith the American people have in our 
democracy.
  That sacred faith is being undermined. It is under assault right now 
by President Trump. This House must act to protect the integrity of its 
proceedings.

[[Page H5014]]

  Now, I know that there are many Members here who are eager to avoid a 
direct up-and-down vote on the specific question of covering up the 
Trump tax returns, and that there have been nine previous times when 
Members have come to the floor and presented resolutions that were 
focused on trying to get those returns and to end the coverup.
  Recognizing the Speaker's prior rulings nine times against 
considering this measure, I have, today, offered a different 
resolution, taking a new approach that I bring to the Speaker's 
attention. Unlike the last nine resolutions, my resolution does not 
direct the Committee on Ways and Means to meet and consider action on 
these secreted tax returns.
  I believe it should not be ruled out of order on the grounds that 
were used the previous nine times that this type of resolution was 
blocked. This coverup of the Trump returns must end, and that is why I 
have taken a different approach.
  Pursuant to Article I, section 7, clause 1 of the United States 
Constitution, what we know as the Origination Clause, the House of 
Representatives has the sole authority to initiate legislation that 
raises revenue for the national government.
  As the Speaker knows, that means the House Ways and Means Committee, 
on which I serve, on which Mr. Pascrell, who I know wants to comment on 
this point of order, is concerned, for this House to exercise with 
integrity its authority to originate tax legislation. This is authority 
that it solely possesses. The American people should know how the 
President and his family might personally benefit from the tax 
legislation, either in their direct personal income or through the many 
business intermediaries with which they work. I believe some 500-plus 
entities reported on their financial disclosure statement.
  President Trump, we know, has bragged publicly about his ability to 
bend the Tax Code to his whim in the past. He has said only he can 
``fix it.''
  And the question is: Will he fix it for himself, or fix it for 
working families? Will he enrich the middle class with jobs, or simply 
enrich himself and other billionaires like him?
  While recently Mr. Trump has provided us a single page of clues 
concerning the contents of his tax plan that they now say will be 
provided fully in September, he has not given us much detail. But he 
does give us a few clues off that one page. One is his proposal to 
repeal the alternative minimum tax. We know if that had been the law, 
if that Trump proposal had been in effect for the one year, 2005, that 
we have his return, he would have paid about the amount that an 
employee does on their Social Security. It would have saved him $30 
million.
  I understand that there are many here that simply don't want to look 
under the rock to see what is contained in those returns. And there are 
many who believe that Mr. Trump is the golden ticket to more prized tax 
breaks, to more ending of consumer protection, and they have been 
rather quiet about the tax return issue, about the conflicts of 
interest, and about the potential foreign collusion.
  But after all the resolutions presented here on the floor, nine, plus 
the amendments that I have offered in the Ways and Means Committee that 
have been rejected, I can say that, while there has not been progress 
yet on the House floor, there has been progress.
  Mr. Trump has responded. He provided a one-page letter from a lawyer 
that reviewed his tax returns, and that lawyer gave a Good Housekeeping 
``seal of approval'' to assure us--``to assure America he had no 
business dealings with the Russians as a result of reviewing the 
returns.''
  What he did not say was that the same law firm had boasted of what 
they call the prestigious honor of being named the ``Russia Law Firm of 
the Year.'' I would just say today, in response specifically to the 
point of order, that it is not sufficient to preserve the integrity of 
this House to rely on the ``Russia Law Firm of the Year'' to be the 
only entity that reviews these returns.

                              {time}  1345

  I believe that we can do better; that we must protect the dignity of 
the House.
  According to Mr. Trump himself, he is already being investigated for 
obstruction of justice. It is important for us to have the tax returns 
on tax reform. It is important to have it on the Russia investigation.
  And, you know, there is hardly an hour that goes by, certainly a day 
that goes by, that there is not some additional information. When I 
opened The Washington Post this morning, right there on the front 
page----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman must confine his remarks to 
the question of privilege.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Certainly.
  And one of those aspects of the question of privilege is how 
conflicts of interest interface with what we are doing here in the 
House. I mentioned the tax returns and the Russia investigation, but 
there is a new one out today, and that is in the budget. I assume 
eventually we are going to have a budget resolution presented here, 
though it is very late this year. But when we take up that budget 
resolution and we take up the appropriation bills, The Washington Post 
reports that, while there have been significant cuts in the Housing and 
Urban Development budget, as many people cannot afford housing--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman must confine his remarks to 
the question of the privileges of the House.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I would do nothing else, Mr. Speaker.
  And this particular example shows how the proceedings of the House 
would be impaired if the only aspect of the budget that increases HUD 
is one from which Mr. Trump personally benefits, which is what the Post 
is reporting, and so we need the returns in order to see that.
  Like so many other broken promises, we will not get these returns 
voluntarily. I believe that the House needs to act. Unlike Sally Yates, 
unlike the U.S. attorney in New York, and unlike James Comey, he can't 
fire us, and we don't have to be accessories to a coverup.
  I call on this House to protect the integrity of its proceedings, 
including the integrity of our unique constitutional authority over tax 
legislation, by declaring that this resolution is in order. This 
resolution simply calls on the House to secure the tax return and 
return information on Mr. Trump and his businesses. It further declares 
that, in order to preserve the integrity of the House, we will not be 
taking up tax reform legislation, which we certainly need to take up, 
and we have ideas to offer and to cooperate in trying to see reform of 
our taxes, but not do it until we have had an opportunity to review 
thoroughly Mr. Trump's tax returns and return information to ascertain 
how he may personally benefit.
  I would hope that the Speaker, considering my comments, as well as 
those that I know Mr. Pascrell wants to offer, would be ruling that we 
can have that straight up-and-down vote, no hiding behind a rock, let 
us look under the rock.
  I appreciate the Speaker giving me this opportunity to emphasize the 
very significant importance of this question to the integrity of the 
House and to the future of the American people and our democracy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the question of order?
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, how are you today?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New Jersey wish to 
be heard on the question of order?
  Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, I do, thank you.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to define a few terms here 
what we are talking about. We are talking about tax returns. What does 
that mean? It doesn't mean the 1040. It doesn't mean the 278.
  In this particular case, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about close to 
12,000 pages of tax returns; that is what we are talking about, the 
integrity of the House, the integrity of myself and you. I know you are 
a person of integrity. And I say it like it is, so I am not blowing 
smoke. That is why this is important.
  So a 2-page, 3-page 1040 doesn't mean anything to what we are doing; 
12,000 pages, just on this President's tax returns.
  The stunning potential conflicts of interest are piling up. Every 
day, we

[[Page H5015]]

all read about it. The President was told by the Ethics Commission, 
divest yourself of your holdings. That doesn't mean you give your money 
away, your assets away. It means what it says, you divest.
  But I think that there is nothing more of a threat to the integrity 
of our House than ignoring our duties, to provide a check and a balance 
to the executive branch. To restore the dignity of the House, we must 
use our authority to request the President's tax returns. Give the 
American people the transparency that they deserve.
  In addition, it is reported that the President's hotel in Washington 
received $270,000 from Saudi Arabia when they were here to lobby 
against the bill allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi 
Government.
  Now, last week, the District of Columbia and Maryland filed a lawsuit 
against the President, arguing that he is violating the anticorruption 
clauses in the Constitution by allowing his businesses to accept 
payments from foreign governments and other government entities. We 
have no way of knowing whether the President or his firms have received 
Russian income or loans or entered into Russian-linked partnerships. In 
fact, you are going to read a lot about that this week. There are 
hearings going on as we speak. A certified letter from paid attorneys 
does nothing to assuage these concerns.
  Two weeks ago, we heard from the former Director of the FBI, James 
Comey, who confirmed that the President tried to influence him to stop 
the Russian investigation.
  Isn't it great that we live in a body where they can't stop us? The 
President can't stop us. We can only stop ourselves.
  The legislative branch has the responsibility and authority to check 
the executive branch, and section 6103, you have heard me say that 
number many times, section 6103 of the Tax Code, which allows for the 
examination of tax returns--that authority, put in place specifically 
so Congress could examine conflicts of interest following that scandal 
which we all know about in 1923.
  Nothing could be more of a threat, to me, to the integrity of the 
House and our Members, than ignoring our duty to fully examine the 
personal financial entanglements of this President or any President, 
and particularly those, at this time, which we are reading about, that 
he may have with the Russian entities and individuals or whether he 
abused the tax laws of this country.
  We have a right to know who our public officials are and what 
investments they have made, and every member of the executive branch of 
government--and this was made clear in the decision in 1924, 
particularly Interior Secretary Fall at that time, to examine his tax 
records, and that is how people were brought to justice in 1924.
  It also protects the privacy of the very taxpayer. And we are having 
exceptions. We have exceptions to that. Three years ago, we had an 
exception in the Ways and Means Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have any further argument 
on whether this resolution constitutes a question of the privileges of 
the House?
  Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, it does constitute a question of privilege, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Then the gentleman will confine his remarks 
to the question of the privileges of the House.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker. May I continue?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As long as the gentleman confines his 
remarks to the question of privilege.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Very good. Thank you.
  Just let me say this in conclusion: if and when, if and when such 
conflicts are revealed, I don't want to say to you, my constituents, 
that we had the power to review the conflicts, but we chose not to. I, 
for one, do not want my integrity or the integrity of my brothers and 
sisters on this floor to be demeaned by a shameful failure. To restore 
the dignity of the House is what this privilege is all about.
  I have a question of the Speaker at this particular time, if I may.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I think that I would like to present today what 
Congress should do immediately about the question of privilege before 
us. May I proceed?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As long as it pertains to the question of 
privilege.
  Mr. PASCRELL. The Chair is good on that answer, Mr. Speaker.
  I think that we should do this. I think we should require the 
President and the Vice President, whomever that will be in the future, 
for now, and their families, to resolve their conflicts of interest by 
selling their assets, using a truly independent asset manager.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's remarks are wandering from 
the question of privilege.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I don't believe so, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. You might not believe so, but the Chair 
does.
  Mr. PASCRELL. But I am compelled to follow your direction.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If the gentleman has no further argument on 
the question of privilege, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Well, my final comment is this: I know you don't take 
the question of integrity lightly. That is not a joking matter at all. 
Nor do I take the integrity of the President of the United States 
lightly. I have an obligation and a responsibility.
  As I said on February 1, I will not yield. This is important to all 
of us, and it is not partisan. Read my letter of February 1.
  I thank the Chair for his indulgence.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Texas seeks to offer a resolution as a question of 
the privileges of the House under rule IX.
  In evaluating the resolution under rule IX, the Chair must determine 
whether the resolution affects ``the rights of the House collectively, 
its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.''
  The first resolving clause of the resolution offered by the gentleman 
from Texas seeks tax returns and tax return information of the 
President and certain of his business entities.
  Section 702 of the House Rules and Manual states that ``rule IX is 
concerned not with the privileges of the Congress, as a legislative 
branch, but only with the privileges of the House, as a House.''
  As the Chair ruled on March 28, 2017, a resolution offered under rule 
IX seeking information from actors entirely extramural to the House, 
such as the President and certain business entities in which the 
President may be involved, is not uniquely concerned with the 
privileges of the House, as a House. Accordingly, the resolution 
offered by the gentleman from Texas does not constitute a question of 
privilege under rule IX.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I most reluctantly, after the Speaker's 
careful consideration of this, must appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?


                            Motion to Table

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Newhouse moves that the appeal be laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by 5-minute votes 
on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 392; and on 
adoption of House Resolution 392, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 188, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 311]

                               YEAS--227

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)

[[Page H5016]]


     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     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
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     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
     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)
     Newhouse
     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
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--188

     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
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     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
     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
     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
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Sanford
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Aderholt
     Chaffetz
     Comstock
     Cummings
     Gabbard
     Higgins (NY)
     Johnson, Sam
     Larsen (WA)
     Long
     Napolitano
     Scalise
     Stewart
     Weber (TX)
     Wilson (FL)


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

  
  June 21, 2017, on page H5016, the following appeared: NOT 
VOTING--14 Aderholt Chaffetz Comstock Cummings Gabbard Gianforte 
Higgins (NY) Johnson, Sam Larsen (WA) Long Napolitano Scalise 
Stewart Weber (TX) Wilson (FL)
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: NOT VOTING--14 
Aderholt Chaffetz Comstock Cummings Gabbard Higgins (NY) Johnson, 
Sam Larsen (WA) Long Napolitano Scalise Stewart Weber (TX) Wilson 
(FL)


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


                              {time}  1419

  Mr. ESPAILLAT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________