Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 182 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 182 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8609-H8614]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2201, MICRO OFFERING SAFE HARBOR
ACT

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 609 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 609

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2201) to
amend the Securities Act of 1933 to exempt certain micro-
offerings from the registration requirements of such Act, and
for other purposes. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2)
the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member
designated in the report, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as
read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
my friend, 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. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation. The rule provides 1 hour of debate and makes in
order all amendments offered at the Rules Committee.
I want to note that not one amendment to this rule or to this bill
was offered by the Democrats.
Mr. Speaker, the Micro Offering Safe Harbor Act is an important step
toward helping small businesses grow across our country. Small
businesses aren't just about selling a product or providing a service.
Entrepreneurs take the risk for a chance to improve their community and
their family's livelihood. These individuals employ our friends and
families and improve our quality of life. Congress needs to do what we
can to help entrepreneurs succeed.
Young businesses need to use their limited capital, time, and
resources to grow their business, not fill out bureaucratic paperwork.
This problem has only grown worse since Congress passed the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010.
When Dodd-Frank passed, Congress promised it would protect consumers.
But it has only hurt community banks, small businesses, and the middle
class. Dodd-Frank's burdensome regulatory regime has caused community
banks to disappear across America, making access to capital more
difficult for many small businesses.
The House passed the Financial CHOICE Act to repeal and replace Dodd-
Frank, but it currently sits untouched in the United States Senate. I
hope they will quickly vote to repeal Dodd-Frank and make credit easier
to access for Main Street.
But there is more we can do in the people's House to help create new
jobs and opportunities. All too often the Federal Government creates
regulations that disproportionately hurt small businesses. While a
large corporation may have a team of lawyers to comply with these
rules, this is rarely the case for a young business. That is why I
support this bill.
This bill ends ambiguity in the law by clearly defining a nonpublic
offering exemption under the Securities Act. Currently, companies just
starting out risk unintentionally violating these laws, which might
discourage them from seeking the capital they need to grow. It is
common sense to ensure our country's laws are clear and to allow small
businesses to operate without fear of accidentally violating the law.
Our economy depends on small businesses and those who put everything
on the line to pursue the American Dream. This bill will benefit all of
us by helping those individuals grow their businesses and create jobs
in their communities. In order to help our small businesses grow and
create jobs, we need to pass this rule and pass the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Securities Act of 1933, which, obviously, was put
into effect after the Depression or while it was going on, governs
current law regarding the sale and purchase of securities like stocks,
bonds, or options. The intent behind this law is to require that
investors receive necessary information about the securities and to
prevent fraud when they are sold.

[[Page H8610]]

To achieve this, the Securities and Exchange Commission currently
prohibits the sale or delivery of securities that have not been
registered with the agency, with some limited exemptions. Today, these
exceptions are usually limited to those transactions made with
sophisticated investors who understand the associated risks.
H.R. 2201 would weaken the Securities Act unnecessarily by adding an
entirely new exemption for certain issuers while removing important
disclosure requirements.
Let me say that again: while removing important disclosure
requirements, in other words, to know what you are buying.
It would leave investors vulnerable to fraud by allowing companies to
sell unregistered securities without the important guardrails that
apply to these transactions today. It is part of the majority's agenda
that prioritizes deregulation above all else.
Through the Congressional Review Act and many other bills, the
majority has been relentlessly attacking safeguards that protect
consumers--risking our health, our safety, and our finances. This is
all in order to make it easier for corporations to engage in
questionable business practices.
Who loses in the giveaway to big corporations and bad actors? The
American people do.
Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that a bad process leads to a bad
product. This week has put the majority in the history books for all
the wrong reasons.
Closed rules completely block Members from offering amendments on the
House floor, and just yesterday, with the 49th closed rule of the year,
this majority broke the record for becoming the most closed session of
Congress in history. That is a long time.
Let me repeat that. This session of the 115th Congress is the most
closed session ever. In fact, our present Speaker has not had an open
rule.
This is not some arcane matter. More than 1,300 amendments have been
blocked this year through the restrictive rules. It has prevented
action on matters that touch nearly every sector of society.

This week we saw another mass shooting in a church. Families gathered
together in a small Texas town, and a man with a gun came in and killed
26 of them and wounded 20 more. One family lost eight of its cherished
members. Those killed in that attack equal 7 percent of the small
town's entire population.
Now, this Congress could work together and actually stop these tragic
murders because this is the place where we can do that, but under the
majority, we can't even get a vote on any measure that would do
anything about it.
If you care about whether we send troops to war in Afghanistan and
Syria--if you care--then closed rules matter.
If you care about protecting whistleblowers or reducing government
spending, then closed rules matter.
If you care about whether we build the President's offensive border
wall with Mexico or strengthen ethics in the executive branch, then
closed rules matter.
If you care about protecting the nearly 800,000 young DREAMers
nationwide, then closed rules definitely matter.
The majority has used restrictive closed and structured rules to
prevent debate and votes on these and many, many other important
matters from ever happening here on the House floor.
Each of us has been elected to do our job representing our
constituents by amending legislation on this floor, but because of the
closed process, we are being prevented from doing our jobs.
Bills routinely come before the Rules Committee that haven't even
been fully considered by the relevant committees. Such a bill is before
us today.
When Speaker Ryan took the gavel 2 years ago, he said: ``Only a fully
functioning House can really, truly do the people's business.'' Well,
Mr. Speaker, we are not doing the peoples business. We are unable to do
the job we were sent here to do. We are unable to take action on the
things our constituents care about most.
It is no wonder that this Congress is the most unpopular Congress in
recent memory. It is past time that we return to regular order and
start tackling the major issues that we face.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, obtaining accessible and reliable forms of
capital is one of the biggest challenges that small businesses and
entrepreneurs face today. I will say that again. We are not talking
about large corporations. We are talking about small businesses and
entrepreneurs.
According to the 2016 Year-End Economic Report from the National
Small Business Association, 41 percent of all small businesses surveyed
said that ``lack of capital is hindering their ability to grow their
business or expand their operations, and 20 percent said they had to
reduce the number of employees as a result of tight credit.''
That is why I introduced the Micro Offering Safe Harbor Act. This
bill does not create a new securities registration exemption under the
Securities Act; rather, it defines what constitutes a permissible
nonpublic offering, and it provides small businesses with the clarity
and confidence to know that their offering is not a violation of the
Securities Act.
If enacted, this will make it easier for entrepreneurs and small
businesses--again, not large corporations--to raise money from family,
friends, and their personal network without running afoul of the vague
and undefined private offering safe harbor provisions in the Securities
Act of 1933.
More specifically, this legislation requires the following three
criteria be met simultaneously in order to trigger a safe harbor
exemption for a security offering: each purchaser must have a
substantive preexisting relationship with an owner; there can be no
more than 35 purchasers of securities from the issuer that are sold in
reliance on the exemption during the 12-month period preceding; and,
lastly, the aggregate amount of all securities sold by the issuer
cannot exceed $500,000 during the 12 months preceding the offering.
The Micro Offering Safe Harbor Act helps bring clarity to existing
law so that our current and future job creators can easily raise
capital within the confines of an easy-to-understand provision without
the help of an ever increasingly expensive expert.

{time} 1245

Furthermore, the legislation preserves all Federal and State
antifraud protections. Ultimately, this bill will scale existing
Federal rules and regulatory compliance for small businesses, thus
providing another practical option for entrepreneurs to raise the
capital they need to start and grow their business.
The timing for this legislation could not be better, as the House
continues to promote job creation and economic growth through this
once-in-a-generation effort to reform our Tax Code.
As our small businesses and startups continue to provide for over
half of all current jobs and over 65 percent of all net new jobs since
the 1970s, we must provide the tools they need to succeed, and this
legislation does just that.
I thank Chairman Hensarling, Chairman Sessions, and Chairman Huizenga
for working to bring this important bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the previous question,
adopt the rule for H.R. 2201, and vote in favor of the Micro Offering
Safe Harbor Act when it comes to the floor for consideration.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This
bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people
who are Americans in every way, except on paper.
Democrats have tried numerous times to protect DREAMers. We voted
over and over to try and bring the Dream Act, and we have offered
amendments, only to be blocked by this record-breaking closed Congress.
There is bipartisan agreement that something must be done to help these
young people. Let's do it today.
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
gentlewoman from New York?

[[Page H8611]]

There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Aguilar) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. AGUILAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, today I must ask a question of this Chamber: What makes
America great?
Do we measure greatness by the strength of our economy or by the size
of our military?
Is greatness defined by export prices and profits of corporations?
You see, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that is the case. I believe that
we are a nation built upon a set of unshakable values. It is our
ability to uphold these values, not the rise and fall of the stock
market, that will ultimately define our greatness.
One of our values is this: if you work hard, set goals, and refuse to
give up, you can fulfill your dreams. As Americans, this value is
engrained into all of us. We repeat it each and every day, and we tell
our kids to follow their dreams, or tell them that they can be anything
that they want when they grow up.
We say these things, Mr. Speaker, because we believe them. We believe
that hard work pays off. We believe that dreams can come true.
Yet, on September 5 of this year, President Trump ignored these
American beliefs when he ended the DACA program. That decision told
nearly 800,000 young people in this country that their hard work didn't
matter and that their dreams of pursuing success might not pay off in
the end.
These young DREAMers, who are as American as any of us, go to school
here, they have jobs here, they raise families in our communities, and
they serve in our military.
This is why each and every day we fail to pass the Dream Act, we call
the values that make our country great into question. If we fail to
pass this bipartisan legislation, then we are no longer a nation where
hard work pays off.
I will be forced to explain that to DREAMers in my district. I will
have to tell Minerva, who paid her way through college, that she will
have to give up her dream of medical school. I will have to explain to
Leticia that, despite becoming the first in her family to attend
college, she will not be able to fulfill her dream of serving others as
a social worker.
You see, Mr. Speaker, these are real young people with real dreams.
They deserve a real answer. They put in the work, they have done
everything they can to build lives in this country, and we need to come
together to make sure that we uphold our values and allow them to
continue those lives here.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous
question so that we can bring the Dream Act to the floor for a vote
immediately. This country is great because we uphold our values. Mr.
Speaker, it is time that we prove that.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital
Markets, Securities, and Investments.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Colorado
allowing me an opportunity to speak on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, currently, the Securities and Exchange Commission
prohibits the sale or delivery of securities that have not been
registered with the agency.
A large portion of startups--and, really, these are ideas--rely on
small, nonprofit offerings also known as private placements, such as
with friends and family. They do a round of offerings in order to raise
initial, early-stage seed capital; however, the Securities Act of 1933
does not define what constitutes a public offering or, conversely, a
nonpublic offering. As a result, startups may unintentionally violate
the act when it seeks to offer securities to potential investors in a
private placement.

Let's put that in real English. Let's make this actually approachable
in a way that I think true American entrepreneurs can understand.
The reality is, these are people with an idea, a drive to move
forward and to improve something. They go and offer to their family, or
maybe ask of their family, to be a part of that dream, to help with
some seed capital, to give them a little bit of their hard-earned money
to help them achieve their dream.
And, guess what?
They get to take part in the success of that. There is some risk, but
there is also reward.
How this really translates is that there might be the doctor who has
got a great idea for a new health drink or a new implement to use while
he is in surgery. This might be a mom who left the workforce and was
taking care of her kids and said: There has got to be a better way of
making sure my kids are getting a healthy meal transported to school;
or something like that.
These are people who are looking around and saying: I can go make
life better not for me, not just for my family, but for others. They
are then trying to pursue that.
To address this uncertainty that we have, H.R. 2201, the Micro
Offering Safe Harbor Act, would implement a simple amendment to the
Securities Act of 1933, by making clear what constitutes a nonpublic
offering.
It is going to provide small businesses with needed clarity and
confidence to know that their offering is not a Securities Act
violation. Think of that. Again, it might be that doctor or that stay-
at-home mom who is out there just trying to fund an idea,
unintentionally and with no malice or no understanding that they are
violating Federal law.
A micro-offering authorized under this bill would allow small
businesses or small entrepreneurs to operate with confidence, and the
commonsense requirements to be a part of this are such:
Each investor has a substantive preexisting relationship with an
owner. This is no fly-by friendship. This is somebody who you actually
know;
There are fewer than 35 purchasers or investors; and
Also, the amount cannot exceed $500,000.
If you just divide out $500,000, which is a lot of money, by 35
people, that is less than $15,000 a person. That is $14,285, to be
exact. This is not about helping Wall Street somehow, for crying out
loud. This is about Main Street.
I believe it is important to note, as the sponsor, Mr. Emmer, had
noted earlier, that nothing in this bill would remove or inhibit the
authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Department
of Justice from prosecuting securities fraud.
With antifraud protections still in place, the legislation
appropriately scales Federal rules and regulatory compliance costs for
these small businesses and entrepreneurs.
H.R. 2201 is a commonsense bill designed to help Main Street and not
Wall Street. Simply put, it will allow these small businesses and
entrepreneurs, these DREAMers, to access capital necessary for their
growth.
As I said, Representative Emmer has done a phenomenal job in
shepherding this through. In a 2016 Capital Markets, Securities, and
Investments Subcommittee hearing where we dealt with the bill, he had a
great quote that said:
``The problem with the ability of small businesses to effectively use
this exemption is--the term `private offering' is not defined in law.
Not only does this prevent small business from using the exemption, it
leaves businesses who try to use the exemption and can't afford a team
of expensive lawyers--which, again, most small businesses cannot--
exposed to potential lawsuits and future liability. . . . This
legislation will create a bright line safe harbor for small private
offerings. It will help entrepreneurs open new businesses and expand
existing ones.''
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the hard work of my colleague, Mr. Emmer, on
this bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R.
2201.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, unnecessary, partisan bills like this one take up
valuable floor time when we could be considering important legislation
to extend expired programs like Perkins loans, which help low-income
students finance their education, or to address gun violence. The
American people are frightened of an agenda that prioritizes
deregulation and corporations above all else.
Democrats have been pushing for votes on the House floor on
amendments that would actually address the

[[Page H8612]]

major problems we are facing today. That includes everything from
climate change and our military's role abroad to protecting the DACA
recipients and addressing the gun violence epidemic that is tearing
communities apart. But we have been blocked at every turn.

The majority has gone to unprecedented lengths to prevent any kind of
real debate from happening. We have proof of that because they have
used closed and structured rules to block more than 1,300 amendments so
far this year. So far, this session is the most closed session of
Congress since Congress began.
It is no wonder that just 13 percent of the public approves of
Congress under this leadership. That is according to the latest figures
from Gallup. The bill before us just continues that dangerous and
unpopular agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule,
and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important step to improve the American
economy. We need to support small businesses and their ability to grow.
This will happen if we give the free market the opportunity to work.
We should get bureaucrats out of the way of small-business owners who
only want to serve their families and communities. This bill moves us
in that direction.
I thank Congressman Tom Emmer for introducing this important bill and
for taking the time to come to the floor today. I also thank Chairman
Hensarling for his work on these bills as well as the House Financial
Services Committee.
Chairman Hensarling recently announced that he will not be seeking
reelection to Congress, but we will all remember the great work he has
done during his time in D.C. and the important contribution he made to
the legislation we are looking at today.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I
ask them to vote ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 609 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2 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.
3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment
of status of certain individuals who are long-term United
States residents and who entered the United States as
children 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 the Judiciary. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3440.
____

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. BUCK. 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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on:
Adopting the resolution, if ordered; and
Suspending the rules and passing H.R. 4173.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 190, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 616]

YEAS--224

Abraham
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie

[[Page H8613]]

Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
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
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Scalise
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
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NAYS--190

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

NOT VOTING--18

Aderholt
Babin
Bridenstine
Cheney
Coffman
Cuellar
Gosar
Grothman
Hurd
Johnson, E. B.
LaMalfa
Mitchell
Norman
Pocan
Rooney, Thomas J.
Roybal-Allard
Sanford
Walker

{time} 1326

Messrs. KHANNA, RYAN of Ohio, and HOYER changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. CALVERT, KATKO, SMITH of New Jersey, and GOODLATTE changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 616.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in a meeting with
the Secretary of the Navy. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 616.
Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 616.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 190, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 617]

YEAS--233

Abraham
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
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
Scalise
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
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NAYS--190

[[Page H8614]]

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
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--9

Aderholt
Bridenstine
Cuellar
Hurd
Johnson, E. B.
Mitchell
Pocan
Roybal-Allard
Sanford

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1334

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.

____________________