[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 107 (Thursday, June 22, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5059-H5067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2842, ACCELERATING INDIVIDUALS INTO
THE WORKFORCE ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO
SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 396 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 396
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. 2842) to provide for the conduct of
demonstration projects to test the effectiveness of
subsidized employment for TANF recipients. 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 Ways and Means. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways
and Means now printed in the bill, 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
115-22. 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.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of June 22, 2017, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though
under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to the bill (H.R. 2353)
to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
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. COLE. 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 Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for consideration of a very important measure. The
resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2842, Accelerating
Individuals into the Workforce Act.
{time} 1230
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2842 is a commonsense proposal to help transition
welfare recipients into steady, paying jobs. Moving welfare recipients
into work is a central goal of TANF, the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families program. This bipartisan bill would incentivize employers to
hire TANF recipients and help subsidize these new employees' salaries
for up to a year to allow them to transition into the workforce.
The policy idea behind H.R. 2842 is simple: under this bill, States
can establish partnerships with employers to hire recipients of TANF
dollars. Through these partnerships, employers would receive a subsidy
of up to 50 percent of the wage for a TANF recipient while the other 50
percent would be paid by the employer.
Beneficiaries would have to meet three requirements: they must be a
TANF recipient, they must be unemployed, and they must have an income
of 20 percent or less of the Federal poverty level. H.R. 2842 will
direct our resources to the neediest individuals and families to help
them accelerate these welfare recipients back into the workforce.
Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan once noted: ``We should measure
welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many
people are added.''
The legislation under consideration in today's rule is a fulfillment
of that promise. Under H.R. 2842, State and local governments will be
able to better utilize their TANF dollars to help move individuals into
paying work and eventually help them transition out of the welfare
system altogether.
Helping people get back to work is a great deal for the individuals
who will be helped under this program, for the employers, for the
economy, and for the American people. This bill is, at its core, about
helping unemployed Americans get back to work.
Mr. Speaker, we are a nation filled with hardworking people, and I
have seen over and over again how badly many of the unemployed want to
return to work. Many, if not most, recipients of TANF are in the
program not because they want to be, but because they have been forced
to be by circumstance. These unemployed Americans want nothing more
than to return to the dignity of the workforce as quickly as they are
able to do so. This bill will help remove barriers to employment and
will incentivize employers to hire current TANF recipients.
Workers re-entering the workforce is a good thing for society. Not
only will workers who receive jobs under this program be taken off of
welfare rolls, thus ensuring the continued success of that program, but
these new workers will be better able to contribute to better lives for
themselves, for their families, and for their communities.
Here in Washington, we too often describe policy solutions as being
``commonsense'' or ``win-win,'' but in this case it is absolutely true.
H.R. 2842 is a commonsense solution and is a win-win for everyone
involved: the workers, the employers, the community, and the country.
That is why this legislation will receive a substantial bipartisan
vote tomorrow. Whatever their differences, Republicans and Democrats
alike want to put unemployed people back to work. This bill will
actually succeed in doing that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Oklahoma for yielding to me
the customary 30 minutes for debate.
This measure is a bipartisan bill that will help Americans receiving
support from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families find good-
paying jobs.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are more than 6
million job openings in our country. That is the highest level recorded
since we started tracking this data, yet the share of Americans
participating in the workforce is at a four-decade low. Clearly, there
are underlying issues
[[Page H5060]]
that need to be addressed to get more people plugged into the
workforce.
For people looking for jobs, TANF serves as a lifeline. TANF is
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services and is
designed to help in-need families achieve self-sufficiency. Under the
program, States receive block grants to design and operate their own
programs to fulfill the goals of the TANF program.
It is important to note that States are at risk of financial penalty
if TANF participants receive more than a year of education or if States
have more than 30 percent of the State TANF caseload in education and
training programs. Due to these limits, States have largely abandoned
efforts to promote or support work in their TANF programs. This is
important to understand because one of the most effective ways to get
more people employed is through employer-driven on-the-job training.
Research has shown that, properly structured, these programs result
in better and more stable employment, especially for individuals who
are otherwise unlikely to find work.
Although the measure we are debating today does not address this
issue, this bill will help tip the scale back toward job-training
programs. H.R. 2842 establishes demonstration projects that combine
work, training, and support for hard-to-employ TANF recipients.
This bill provides a onetime appropriation of $100 million to
subsidize these programs. After the 12-month period, States are going
to be required to report to Congress on the effectiveness of
subsidizing wages in moving individuals receiving TANF into full-time
jobs.
Since we are talking about jobs, we need to recognize that we as an
institution have not provided the necessary resources to get people
back to work. If you were to ask any Member of this body to outline his
or her top priorities, I guarantee you that job creation would be
mentioned every single time. We all agree on the need, but from there,
the conversation stops. There are lots of proposals in Congress to
create jobs, but we have been unable to pass a large-scale, bipartisan
bill for quite some time. This really needs to change.
Given the legislation we are debating today, it is interesting to me
that President Donald John Trump's budget proposal cut workforce
training programs by 39 percent. Rather than present a jobs bill, he
has presented a plan that would actually stop helping people looking
for jobs. That, in my judgment, is penny-wise and pound-foolish. In
bringing forward this legislation, I think it is being made clear that
this body does not share that approach, but we need to do more than a
single, targeted bill.
Five months into the Trump administration, Republican leadership
still has not put forward a single large-scale piece of legislation to
create good-paying jobs or raise the wages of hardworking Americans,
but its leadership has rejected Democratic proposals out of hand.
We should be working every day on creating jobs and raising wages for
everyone everywhere in America. But instead of focusing on job
creation, Donald John Trump's budget request would destroy
approximately 1.4 million jobs.
His budget would eviscerate billions of dollars from critical job-
creating investments in infrastructure and innovation, dismantle skills
training programs like the one we are discussing here today, ransack
education benefits, and leave our country in a weakened state. Instead
of bringing jobs back to communities that have fallen on hard times,
the budget walks away from them.
So, Mr. Speaker, I will leave it at this. The underlying measure we
are debating today is a good step forward. But one step is not nearly
enough. We need to do more, not less, to strengthen our communities and
help working families.
Just as I urge Donald John Trump to move past the campaign rhetoric
and get serious, I also urge this body to lead with more bipartisan
measures that will provide for necessary resources for those who need
them most.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by agreeing with my good friend on many
of the points that he made. I was particularly struck by the point he
made about the low participation rate in the labor force. That has been
a problem that has been with us, quite frankly, for, as he pointed out,
several decades, and it is one that has gotten worse.
That is attributable in large part to another point that my friend
made, effectively the thing around here we call the skills gap. We have
literally millions of jobs available in this country, and employers are
ready to hire people but they simply don't have the training.
I couldn't agree more with my good friend that on-the-job training is
sometimes the best training. You actually acquire the skill that you
need to be successful, and the situation of this legislation will
actually, again, offset the cost of that to the employer and, by the
way, not add any cost to the taxpayer.
That is something we ought to talk about as well. We are just taking
money that we would have been spending anyway, and we are spending it a
lot more productively.
Now, my friend is right. This is a new program. This is a new
approach. So trying it out for a year, spending $100 million--a lot of
money--but obviously we would spend more this way if we would know this
would be successful. But I can't help but think it will be successful.
It is important to note that this bill is actually, again,
exceptionally bipartisan. I was struck, as I hope my friend was,
yesterday when we were in Rules Committee considering this legislation.
We are used to seeing the members of the Ways and Means Committee come
up and sort of fight in front of us. Instead, they actually came up arm
in arm with a bipartisan proposal that they had agreed to that, again,
is an excellent, excellent work.
It is exactly the way that Congress should work, quite frankly: find
common ground and advance commonsense solutions that make life better
for the American people. In this case, at least, I think we have
succeeded in doing that.
It is also important to note that the rule authorizes the
consideration of H.R. 2353, the so-called Perkins grant program. The
Perkins grant is something we are pretty familiar with in Oklahoma.
This is Federal money that moves into career tech systems that helps
actually, again, workers acquire the necessary skills to be productive,
quite often, again, working with the employer who has already got the
jobs available. We then train the worker at a career tech system partly
funded with Federal dollars, and that person is assured the job the day
they walk out.
I suspect that bill, like this bill, when it finally reaches the
floor will also have substantial bipartisan support. I want to pledge
to my good friend that we are going to continue to work together on
things like this. I don't think anybody disagrees about putting
Americans back to work. Workers would rather be at work than, frankly,
just receiving government assistance and not able to go work. So this
bill does that.
I want to urge support of the rule and, again, the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. DelBene), who is a distinguished member of the
Committee on Ways and Means.
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the
underlying legislation, which includes my amendment expanding
apprenticeships for American workers.
I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for
supporting this important effort in the Ways and Means Committee, and I
look forward to its passage.
We can all agree that helping people find long-term employment in a
high-demand industry is one of the best ways to ensure that everyone
has economic security. But technological advancements like automation
and artificial intelligence are dramatically shifting the way our
economy works, and these changes are only going to accelerate.
We cannot allow American workers to be left behind. Congress needs to
be forward looking, not reactive, in crafting policies that help
workers who are displaced from the workforce. I believe that means we
need a national
[[Page H5061]]
commitment to addressing the skills gap and mitigating disruption in an
evolving 21st century economy.
Apprenticeships and on-the-job training are an important part of that
equation. Apprenticeships can be an incredible opportunity for
businesses and workers alike.
{time} 1245
They allow employers to build a pipeline of qualified workers while
equipping job seekers with the specific skills they need to find and
keep good-paying jobs.
Oftentimes, they provide skills that are portable and meaningful
anywhere in the country, giving workers more freedom to transfer
between companies and industries.
In my home State of Washington, investments and apprenticeships have
been shown to give a higher return on investment than any other job
training program, returning $23 for each dollar that is invested.
It is important to remember these investments not only have an
incredible impact on our economy but also on people's lives by helping
them become more self-sufficient through specialized training and
increased earning potential.
I appreciate my colleague's bipartisan support for this amendment,
and I urge its passage in the underlying legislation.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Decades of experience tell us that the most effective antipoverty
program is a job, and this bill helps low-income Americans earn success
through the dignity of work.
States actually, as my good friends on the other side know, spend
very little of their TANF funding on moving people into jobs. Today,
half of all TANF recipients are neither working nor preparing for work.
This bill ensures that money only goes to those who are working,
providing individuals with paychecks in lieu of benefit checks, a key
tenet in welfare reform.
This pilot only provides funding for one fiscal year, repurposing
money that has already been appropriated and, frankly, using it in a
better way than it was originally appropriated to achieve.
The bill requires that States report on outcome measures and provide
high-quality evaluations so that Congress can make appropriate
decisions after we have actually seen the results yielded by the
program.
And finally, as we have been pointing out, but I think around here it
is always worth pointing out multiple times, where actually CBO
estimates the bill has no cost. So we are actually doing something good
without increasing expenditures for the taxpayers, and, indeed, we are
probably in the process of creating new taxpayers, people who can
contribute to the wealth and the activity and the prosperity of the
country; and people, honestly, who want to contribute to the wealth and
the activity; and employers who want to provide people with an
opportunity to improve themselves and become more productive.
So it is a good bill all the way around, and, again, I will be urging
the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
President Donald John Trump campaigned on the promise of job
creation; however, his budget paints a very different picture. It cuts
job training programs by 39 percent, and its radical spending cuts
would lead to massive job losses.
In this body, we talk a lot about jobs, but we are 6 months into this
Congress and have failed to pass any major job creation bills. While
the bipartisan legislation before us today is, indeed, as my good
friend points out, a step in the right direction, we can and we must do
more.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that I have an amendment in my
hand that will generate thousands of American jobs. If we defeat the
previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to
bring up Representative DeFazio's bipartisan bill, H.R. 2510, the Water
Quality Protection and Job Creation Act. This bill will create
thousands of new American jobs through increased investment in our
Nation's wastewater infrastructure. Here is a chance to take today's
momentum a step further and consider Mr. DeFazio's bill in addition to
the bipartisan TANF bill.
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 Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my very good friend, the distinguished ranking
member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee who will
discuss our proposal.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity.
As he noted, the President has talked and tweeted incessantly about
creating jobs and infrastructure investment, but, unfortunately, the
only substantive proposal to come out of the White House that relates
to infrastructure, infrastructure investment, and jobs is in his
budget, and it actually reduces Federal investment in infrastructure,
which would basically eliminate jobs.
So I mean, the bill before us today, bipartisan bill on
apprenticeships is great, but you have got to apprentice for something
that is real: a job in the end, construction.
America is falling apart, and, right now, we have nothing but
rhetoric coming out of the White House, and now ideology. They are
talking about privatizing all of the infrastructure in the United
States so that you will pay tolls everywhere you go, and, you know,
they call it asset recycling. They have come up with a catchy new name.
That has been floated, but they haven't put any substance behind it.
So this amendment would allow the House to debate and pass H.R. 2510,
Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. This bill would
provide $25 billion in direct infrastructure investment over the next 5
years to address America's crumbling wastewater infrastructure and
local water quality challenges.
The state of our water infrastructure, according to the American
Society of Engineers' report card of 2017, is a D-plus. Meanwhile,
municipalities across the country have a backlog of more than $40
billion--B, billion--in clean water infrastructure projects, and,
according to the EPA, communities need close to $300 billion over the
next 20 years to bring their systems into a state of good repair.
It is clear that we cannot continue to neglect the serious needs of
our aging water infrastructure. As these systems fail and degrade, they
pose a risk to the health and safety of our citizens and obviously the
environment.
I know the President promised, during his campaign, to make clean
water a priority. I agree with that. He promised to triple funding for
State revolving loan fund programs to help States and local governments
upgrade critical drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.
Well, here is a chance to deliver on that promise. H.R. 2510 does
exactly that. It triples investment in America's crumbling water
infrastructure.
I was a county commissioner at a time when the Federal Government was
a good partner, and, in those days, they put up 85 percent of the cost
of our wastewater system. We put up the other 15. You know, this
could--by renewing this legislation and a commitment to the State
revolving loan fund programs and adding in a grant component for lower
income areas, that could, you know, be a great step in terms of Federal
partnership and creating actual jobs for the apprentices that this bill
wants to create.
There is widespread support for this legislation. I include in the
Record letters of endorsement from 30 separate groups.
Ohio Environmental Council,
Columbus, OH.
Hon. Garret Graves,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Grace Napolitano,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Napolitano: On
behalf of the Ohio Environmental Council, I am writing to
enthusiastically support the Water Quality
[[Page H5062]]
Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. This bill bolsters
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) by authorizing $20
billion over five years for loans to improve wastewater
infrastructure in local communities. It also provides crucial
additional funding to help states control water pollution and
address challenges from outdated sewer systems.
The need for this bill has never been greater as the nation
faces a $40 billion backlog of clean water infrastructure
projects, with cities and towns needing $300 billion over 20
years to update their water systems. In Ohio, the American
Society of Civil Engineers found our state needs a total
$14.58 billion for wastewater improvements. The Clean Water
SRF is an essential resource to help meet this need.
The Water Pollution Control Loan Fund (WPCLF) program,
Ohio's Clean Water SRF, continues to provide fundamental
capacity to improve water quality for Ohio communities and
residents. The program includes several different loan
options that help both cities and rural communities prevent
water pollution. This includes funding to upgrade and replace
Home Sewage Treatment Systems (HSTS), as well as assistance
for wastewater collection and treatment, stormwater
activities, and efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution.
Interest from the WPCLF program funds the preservation and
restoration of aquatic habitat to counter the loss of natural
systems that helped maintain the health of Ohio's water
resources.
Since its inception the Clean Water SRF has provided $7.2
billion serving 621 villages, cities, counties and sewer
districts helping to curb pollution while providing quality
jobs. To ensure this program's continuing success and help
Ohio address our water infrastructure needs, I urge your
support for the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act
of 2017.
Sincerely,
Heather Taylor-Miesle,
Executive Director.
____
California Association of
Sanitation Agencies,
Sacramento, CA.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Ranking Member, Committee on Public Works and Transportation,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Grace Napolitano,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Members DeFazio and Napolitano: The California
Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) is pleased to
support your efforts to address the water infrastructure
funding gap and specifically the introduction of the Water
Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. For 60
years, CASA has been the leading voice for California's
public wastewater agencies on regulatory, legislative and
legal issues.
CASA agencies are faced with mounting challenges of aging
infrastructure, growing demands from increasing population,
and emerging challenges from changing climate conditions.
Confronted with these realities, there is clear demand for
increased infrastructure investment, including the need to
invest in water recycling infrastructure and clean energy
facilities derived from the wastewater treatment process.
Under your legislation, the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (SRF) would be renewed at $20 billion over five years.
This authorization represents a critical down payment toward
a robust federal commitment to the nation's water
infrastructure needs. According to the report, the financial
burden to simply meet water quality and water-related public
health goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in California was
in excess of $26 billion in 2012. Due to drought conditions
and other strains on our wastewater systems, that figure has
only gone up over the last 5 years. Nationwide the demand for
all clean and drinking water infrastructure needs has been
estimated at more than $300 billion over the next two
decades. CASA also supports the bill's provisions to
authorize grant assistance for water recycling as well as the
programs to address stormwater flows and combined sewer
overflows. In California, the ability to construct water-
recycling projects is vital to a safe and reliable water
supply and to ensure protection of our ecosystems.
As you and your colleagues work to develop a comprehensive
water infrastructure policy for the nation, we look forward
to working with you to advance meaningful federal assistance
programs.
Adam D. Link,
Director of Government Affairs.
____
American Society of Civil Engineers,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2017.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member DeFazio: The American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) supports The Water Quality Protection and
Job Creation Act of 2017 to provide needed funds to fix the
nation's wastewater treatment systems.
The nation's wastewater treatment systems are the most
basic and critical infrastructure systems for protecting
public health and the environment, but are badly underfunded.
Nearly 240 million Americans--76% of the population--rely on
the nation's 14,748 treatment plants for wastewater
sanitation. By 2032 it is expected that 56 million more
people will connect to centralized treatment plants, rather
than private septic systems--a 23% increase in demand. In the
U.S., there are over 800,000 miles of public sewers and
500,000 miles of private lateral sewers connecting private
property to public sewer lines. Each of these conveyance
systems is susceptible to structural failure, blockages, and
overflows.
In March, ASCE released its 2017 Infrastructure Report
Card, which graded our nation's wastewater systems a ``D+.''
Many wastewater systems are aging and it's expected that over
the next two decades, requiring at least $271 billion to meet
current and future demands.
This legislation is an important step towards meeting our
country's wastewater investment needs and improving our
wastewater systems.
Sincerely,
Brian Pallasch,
Managing Director, Government
Relations & Infrastructure Initiatives.
____
Water Infrastructure Network,
May 2, 2017.
Re WIN's Strong Support for the Water Quality Improvement and
Job Creation Act.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member DeFazio: The Water Infrastructure
Network (WIN), a coalition of the nation's leading
construction, engineering, municipal, conservation, public
works, labor and manufacturing organizations, strongly
supports the Water Quality Improvement and Job Creation Act.
WIN also commends your continued work to reauthorize our
nation's critical water infrastructure funding programs. The
United States is facing a water infrastructure funding crisis
as documented in recent reports by CBO, EPA and WIN pointing
to a shortfall in funding for clean water infrastructure that
exceeds $300 Billion over the next two decades. The Clean
Water Act was last reauthorized in 1987 and WIN believes that
consideration and passage of legislation providing
substantial increased investment in America's Water
Infrastructure is long overdue.
WIN is encouraged by the growing bipartisan support in
Congress for investing in our nation's clean water
infrastructure. The FY '17 Appropriation Package released
this week calls for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to
be funded at $1.39 Billion--a $414 M increase over the
original FY '17 funding request. The Trump Administration has
also made investments in our nation's water infrastructure a
top priority for the Environmental Protection Agency,
requesting increases in funding for both the Clean Water Act
and Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Funds in their
2018 Budget.
WIN believes Congress must seize this unique opportunity
make long overdue investments in our nation's critical water
infrastructure. Investments in water infrastructure make
eminent economic and environmental sense for our nation. WIN
is committed to working with you and the bipartisan
leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
to advance water infrastructure funding legislation in the
First Session of the 115th Congress.
Sincerely,
The WIN Executive Committee--American Council of
Engineering Companies (ACEC), American Public Works
Association (APWA), American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE), Associated General Contractors of America
(AGCA), International Union of Operating Engineers
(IUOE), Laborers International Union of North America
(LIUNA), National Association of Clean Water Agencies
(NACWA), National Rural Water Association (NRWA),
United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters (The
United), and the Vinyl Institute (VI).
____
Oregon Water Resources Congress,
Salem, Oregon, May 3, 2017.
Re The Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Washington, DC.
Representative DeFazio: On behalf of the Oregon Water
Resources Congress (OWRC), I am writing to express our
support of Congressman DeFazio's efforts to reauthorize the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and tackle the water
quality financing needs in the country under The Water
Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. The CWSRF is
an effective program that addresses critical water
infrastructure needs while benefitting the environment, local
communities, and the economy.
OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to
support the protection of water rights and promote the wise
stewardship of water resources statewide. OWRC members are
local governmental entities, which include irrigation
districts, water control districts, drainage districts, water
improvement districts, and other agricultural water suppliers
that deliver water to roughly 1/3 of all irrigated land in
Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management
systems, including water supply reservoirs, canals,
pipelines, and hydropower facilities that serve a diverse set
of farmers, ranchers, and other water users contributing to
the local and global economy.
[[Page H5063]]
The CWSRF is a perfect example of the type of program that
should be reauthorized because it creates jobs while
benefitting the environment, and is an efficient return on
taxpayer investment. CWSRF funded projects provide family
wage jobs in construction and professional services industry
that are a crucial component to economic recovery in Oregon
and other states. Moreover, as a loan program, it is a wise
investment that allows local communities to leverage their
limited resources and address critical infrastructure needs
that would otherwise be unmet.
OWRC was very pleased to see the passage of the Water
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN) by
Congress in December last year. An integral piece of the
funding puzzle for our member districts was reinstated by
this act, irrigation district eligibility for principal
forgiveness. The CWSRF is often an integral part of an
overall package of state, federal and local funding that
necessitates a stronger level of assurance that loan funds
will be available for planned water infrastructure projects.
Irrigation districts are often located in rural communities
and have a small number of farmers with limited capacity to
take on loan debt. Even a small reduction in the principal
repayment obligations can make the difference in whether or
not a district can move forward with a project.
The CWSRF program is an important tool utilized by OWRC
members across Oregon, and we applaud this effort by
Congressman DeFazio to reauthorize this key program. OWRC
looks forward to working with the Committee and this Congress
as the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017
moves forward.
Sincerely,
April Snell,
Executive Director,
Oregon Water Resources Congress.
____
Southern Environmental
Law Center,
Washington, DC, May 3, 2017.
Hon. Peter DeFazio,
Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jimmy Duncan,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and the
Environment, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives DeFazio, Napolitano and Duncan:
Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) writes in support of
the Water Quality Protection and Job Creation Act of 2017. At
a time when much of our nation's infrastructure is at a
breaking point, bolstering our national infrastructure funds
is more critical than ever. Thank you for your leadership on
clean water infrastructure investment.
This bill authorizes $20 billion in Federal grants over
five years to capitalize Clean Water State Revolving Funds
(Clean Water SRF). Across the country, many communities are
struggling with how to pay for needed investments and
upgrades to infrastructure that protects clean water and
public health. According to the 2012 Clean Watersheds Needs
Survey, municipalities need close to $300 billion in
investment over the next 20 years to bring their wastewater
and stormwater management infrastructure to a state of good
repair.
The Clean Water SRF provides a critical source of funding
to states to address water infrastructure needs and reduce
pollution from stormwater and wastewater across the country.
This legislation will help communities address the estimated
$40 billion backlog in clean water infrastructure projects.
Additionally, this investment in our water infrastructure is
good for the economy. The report Water Works: Rebuilding
infrastructure, Creating Jobs and Greening the Environment
shows that investments in our water infrastructure, including
green infrastructure, would conservatively yield 1.9 million
American jobs and add $265 billion to the economy.
This legislation authorizes $20 billion in Federal grants
over five years for the Clean Water SRF to provide low-
interest loans and additional loan subsidizations to
communities for wastewater infrastructure. We are supportive
of efforts to increase the resiliency of treatment works to
natural or man-made disasters. In the face of a changing
climate, resiliency of our nation's infrastructure is
increasingly important.
Also, this legislation authorizes $2.5 billion over five
years for grants to address combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and recapture and reuse
of municipal stormwater. CSOs and SSOs pose a significant
health and safety risk to communities and can damage local
economies that are dependent on clean water and tourism. We
are supportive of funds to address this ongoing problem that
can cost communities significant resources to address.
Economists estimate that between 20,000 and 26,600
construction, engineering, and manufacturing jobs are created
for every billion dollars of federal investment in water
infrastructure. Investments in the Clean Water SRFs are
critical to protect public health, promote job creation, and
restore clean water in our rivers, lakes, and streams.
SELC appreciates your leadership on clean water
infrastructure investment and your continued work on reducing
pollution related to aging and inadequately funded
infrastructure.
Sincerely,
Navis A. Bermudez,
Deputy Legislative Director,
Southern Environmental Law Center.
Mr. DeFAZIO. And according to the National Utility Contractors
Association, every billion dollars invested in our Nation's water
infrastructure creates or sustains 27,000 real jobs in the private
sector. That means that the $20 billion in Federal investment in the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund, including H.R. 2510, would create or
sustain approximately 540,000 jobs.
This is real. It is real. Real jobs for real people and real
improvements in the infrastructure of this country. This would be a
great step forward, and I urge that my colleagues adopt the amendment.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have been having such a wonderful bipartisan moment
here. My good friend from Oregon, and appropriately, wants to change
the tenor a little bit.
Let me begin by actually congratulating my good friend from Oregon
because he is a serious legislator and does serious things, and I am
probably going to find myself on the same side with him on the issue of
air traffic controllers where I think his points have been very well
made.
On this particular piece of legislation, I must admit, I have not had
the opportunity. I don't sit on my friend's committee to actually read
it, but I suspect the committee hasn't picked it up and dealt with it
either.
And just from a process standpoint, I think the appropriate thing to
do would be for the committee to actually review it. It could be
amended in committee, as indeed this bill was, and then we would have
the opportunity to consider it on the floor. But to bring it to the
floor immediately, to me, is premature, legislatively.
I also want to take issue, on the record, with my friends of the
President of the United States in terms of job creation. I suspect
President Trump, in his private life, has created more jobs than just
about anybody in the Congress of the United States, and I think he has
laid forward some incredibly important proposals to continue and build
on his personal record, now that he is President of the United States.
One of those proposals, as my friends are surely aware, because I
think they largely agree with it, is to enhance the apprenticeship
program announcement he made recently. Another one that my friends may
not be quite so much in agreement with, he has laid out his principles
for tax reform.
The greatest engine for job growth is never going to be the Federal
Government. It is going to always be the private sector. And if we
could, as the President has suggested, cut corporate tax rates,
incentivize the return of profit, something where perhaps we can work
together, that are stranded overseas, bring them back here and invest
in America, I think we would create a lot more jobs a lot more quickly
and in a lot more sustainable fashion than we would do through
additional public spending.
Finally, I think we ought to give the President a little bit of
credit for emphasizing and bringing home American jobs, something that
actually began once he was President-elect. We saw it in Indiana with
Carrier air-conditioning. We have seen it in other cases where he has
promoted the sale of American arms in the Middle East where we have got
substantial things.
So I think this is a President who actually gets up each and every
day and thinks profoundly about what can we do to create an overall
ecosystem, an environment, if you will, that will incentivize private
investment, private employment, American jobs, and bringing American
companies back to this country.
I think he is actually off to an exceptionally good start in those
areas, and I look forward to working with him on that. I suspect we
will see a tax proposal on this floor in the not-too-distant future--
our friends on Ways and Means are working on it now--that will mirror
many of the principles that the President laid out in his initial draft
discussion of what he thinks we ought to do.
And that one change, changing the Tax Code, I think, will do more
than
[[Page H5064]]
all the programs that we would work on, many of them worthy programs,
many of them things, I think, where the Federal Government does have a
role.
I will agree with my friend from Florida, I am disturbed about some
of the cuts in training programs. I have seen those programs work and
work well, and I suspect the President will find out, as other
Presidents have found out--we used to routinely praise President
Obama's budget on the floor. It never got very many votes. I don't
think it ever got any Democratic votes--that, you know, Presidents
propose, as they should, that is their prerogative, they run the
executive branch, but, at the end of the day, it is Congress that makes
the final funding decisions.
I happen to know a little bit about those programs because they come
through my subcommittee on appropriations, and I want to assure my
friends they are not going to disappear. And we may have to make some
tough choices, as you always have to do, in appropriated dollars, but
on many of the programs that I know my friend cares about and has
championed in his distinguished career, they are going to be protected,
and we are going to try and work in a bipartisan fashion in those areas
and keep those things going.
But, at the end of the day, I think the President's record on job
creation will be outstanding, and I think the actions that he has taken
in the opening part of his administration are a testament to how
seriously he takes the challenge of making sure that every American has
a decent job, a job that pays a good wage, a job that will provide for
his or her family, and a job that will give them an opportunity to live
a life of dignity and prosperity, something we want every American to
have a chance at.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I first want to address my good friend about the previous question
and the fact that it has not gone through the process. I will just
remind him that the chatter in Washington today is about a healthcare
measure that hasn't gone through the process, at least to the extent
that most of us would all want.
I also have great respect for my good friend from Oklahoma, and I
know he will see and get a chance to talk with President Donald John
Trump. I am not likely to.
{time} 1300
But I would ask him to tell him when he sees him for me that I came
here in 1993, and there were 14,000 bridges in need of repair in
America, and last year the statistics from the society that does that
analysis showed that there are 54,000 bridges in need of repair in this
country. The point that I wish to make is that we need a serious
substantial infrastructure measure.
Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about jobs in this Chamber. I was at a
forum on Saturday, and someone mentioned: My governor's mantra is
``jobs, jobs, jobs.'' And that person said: Well, he must mean that you
have to have three jobs in order to get by.
I am glad that we are here today considering a bill that will help
Americans in search of work to find a good-paying position that will
help them support themselves and their families. We have a lot of
issues facing us, and this bipartisan legislation is just one tiny step
forward in the right direction. I hope this measure translates into
more bipartisan bills.
Too often, from healthcare reform, tax reform--footnote right there.
My friend mentions that we will likely see a tax reform measure
sometime soon. I hope that it doesn't revert to trickle down. We have
seen trickle down. It did not work, and I hope we don't do that again.
We have an opportunity on other issues, and in many respects the
majority has shut out the minority from the process, just like what has
happened until today, at least, in the other body with reference to
healthcare.
The bills we have debated and even passed are projected to eliminate
millions of jobs. Even as we talk about job creation, my friends across
the aisle too frequently turn around and champion measures that would
do just the opposite. There is so much room for cooperation in this
area, yet time and time again we are kept out of the process, and the
results speak for themselves. For the sake of our country, this needs
to change.
Even though this is a bipartisan bill, it also serves as an example
of what I mean. I was disappointed that my Republican colleagues in the
Rules Committee blocked yesterday six germane amendments to this bill.
It is a sympton of the closed process. When we prevent germane
amendments from even being debated by the House, it does us all a
disservice, yet my friends across the aisle do it again and again.
Mr. Speaker, I will close with this: President Obama is credited for
creating 11.3 million jobs in our country. The economy added jobs for
75 straight months, and very fortunately that carryover for the last 5
months has continued.
While President Donald John Trump makes untenable pledge after
pledge, I watched every word of his speech last night in Iowa, and all
I heard was platitudes. I didn't hear anything about substance. And it
seemed like a road test for some new ideas. He makes these untenable
pledges, including a very humble promise to be--and I quote him--``the
greatest jobs producer that God ever created.''
The record is clear, the Democratic Party is, has been, and will be
the party of job creation, and is ready to work with my Republican
colleagues to continue significant job creation in this country.
So I will ask my friends across the aisle, let us continue the trend
of the past few years and work together to produce bipartisan measures
that will benefit the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by addressing a couple of points that my
friend made. There will be places we agree; there will be places we
disagree. I think too often around here we talk about how nothing gets
done when this has actually been an extraordinarily productive period
in terms of passing legislation. We are going to have differences on
some of that legislation, there is no question. There is a reason why
God created a Democratic Party and a Republican Party, and it probably
wasn't to always agree all the time, but it was to challenge one
another and try to work together when they could or define alternative
paths when they felt they must, and let the American people make the
decision.
Fortunately, we are blessed to live in a country where they get to
make that decision on a regular basis like clockwork. They have been
making some decisions recently. I think the President has had a pretty
good run in special elections. We are pretty pleased with the decisions
they have been making. But at some point they will change their mind--
they always do--and they will decide somebody else has a better way.
I think in the interim we ought to stress occasionally so the
American people know when we do work together. I actually was home
after we managed to pass healthcare through this particular body, and
that bill moved through multiple committees, had multiple amendments,
lots of negotiation. Obviously it is in the Senate now. I think that
process will start over there. But the day before we passed it,
actually, we came together in a really quite remarkable way. We passed
an omnibus spending bill of over $1 trillion. That bill had worked
through the Appropriations Committee of each House, 12 different bills
put together to fund the Federal Government. That particular bill gave
us the largest increase in defense spending in about a decade, the
largest increase in border security money in about a decade. It gave us
a substantial increase in money at the National Institutes of Health
and at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, areas that
Democrats and Republicans alike have been working together on and feel
very strongly about.
That bill also broke the one-to-one relationship--pretty artificial
relationship, in my view--that President Obama had laid down that, if
you increase defense spending, you have to automatically increase
domestic spending whether you need to or not or whether you can afford
to or not.
[[Page H5065]]
Frankly, that bill actually passed with a majority of my friends on the
Democratic side in both the House and the Senate and a majority of
Republicans in the House and the Senate voting for the same bill and
Donald Trump signing the bill.
Now, when I go home and I explain that to people, they look at me
with a blank stare. It is like: What? That really happened? One
trillion dollars with all those different elements in there and a
majority of Democrats voted for it and a majority of Republicans voted
for it and Donald Trump signed it?
I say: Yeah.
They are amazed. They have never heard about it. They have never seen
it. I think that is because sometimes we present a false narrative of
constant conflict. There is certainly plenty of conflict here. Look, I
have some sympathy with the minority. Having been in the minority
myself, you always feel shut out. But this is an occasion--this
legislation, and, frankly, that spending bill--when my friends
certainly weren't shut out. They participated, and they participated
vigorously, and they contributed in the process.
I am with my friend. We need to do more of that. As a matter of fact,
I think you will see it is happening right now. If you go to the
Defense Committee, they are working on their authorization bill. That
committee is the most bipartisan committee probably in Congress. Every
time they report something out on an authorization--I think they have
63 or 64 members, something like that--the vote is always like 60 to 3.
They have clearly put aside their partisan differences to work
together.
In this bill, we have done exactly the same thing. So while we are
going to have some points where we disagree, we are going to have some
opportunities to agree and come together. And I pledge to my friend I
will continue to work with him to try and see that we find more of
them.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all of the Members,
obviously, to support the rule, but I am sure my good friends on the
other side probably won't accept the invitation. That is okay. This is
a process vote and they have got other matters they want on the floor,
and I certainly understand that they will be opposing our rule and
trying to offer an alternative.
But when the matter counts, when the actual legislation reaches the
floor, I think H.R. 2842 will draw broad bipartisan support. This House
is taking steps to help workers leave welfare rolls and return to the
workforce. Under this bill, employers will be incentivized to hire TANF
recipients and will help bring the unemployed up into the workforce and
the economy.
This bill is a commonsense bipartisan solution that will benefit
everyone: the workers, the employers, the community, the economy, and
the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle for their work on this important piece of legislation. I think if
we can get it through this House and we get it through the Senate, I am
sure that Mr. Trump will be more than happy to sign it.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:
An amendment to H. Res. 396 Offered by Mr. Hastings
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2510) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
authorize appropriations for State water pollution control
revolving funds, 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. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec.4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 2510.
____
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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. 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 226,
nays 184, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 316]
YEAS--226
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
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
[[Page H5066]]
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
Gianforte
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 (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
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
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
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)
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--184
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
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
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
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
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--21
Banks (IN)
Bishop (UT)
Cummings
DeLauro
Gabbard
Johnson (LA)
Johnson, Sam
Keating
Lance
Larsen (WA)
Lieu, Ted
Long
Meeks
Messer
Napolitano
Perry
Roskam
Scalise
Tiberi
Wasserman Schultz
Wenstrup
{time} 1333
Ms. SINEMA and Mr. CRIST changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Esty of Connecticut was allowed to speak
out of order.)
Moment of Silence Honoring Servicemembers Killed Aboard USS
``Fitzgerald''
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the USS
Fitzgerald collided with a container ship off the coast of Japan. Seven
of our brave servicemembers were killed in the collision.
I ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of silence to honor the
brave sailors who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 179, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 317]
AYES--233
Abraham
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
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
Crist
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
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
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)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
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
Schneider
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)
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--179
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
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)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
[[Page H5067]]
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
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
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
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--19
Aderholt
Bishop (UT)
Cummings
Gabbard
Hastings
Johnson, Sam
Lance
Larsen (WA)
Lieu, Ted
Long
Meeks
Messer
Napolitano
Perry
Ruiz
Scalise
Tiberi
Wasserman Schultz
Wenstrup
{time} 1342
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained today for rollcall
vote No. 317. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
personal explanation
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was unexpectedly detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 316, and ``yea'' on
rollcall No. 317.
personal explanation
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I missed two votes on June 22. If I were
present, I would have voted on the following: Rollcall No. 316: On
Ordering the Previous Question, ``yea.'' Rollcall No. 317: On Passage
of H. Res. 396, ``yea.''
personal explanation
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No.
316 and No. 317 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering
the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R.
2842. I would have also voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 396--Rule providing
for consideration of H.R. 2842--Accelerating Individuals into the
Workforce Act.
____________________