[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.
____________________