[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 186 (Tuesday, November 14, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9191-H9199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2874, 21ST CENTURY FLOOD REFORM
ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R.
2810, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 616 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows
H. Res. 616
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2874) to
achieve reforms to improve the financial stability of the
National Flood Insurance Program, to enhance the development
of more accurate estimates of flood risk through new
technology and better maps, to increase the role of private
markets in the management of flood insurance risks, and to
provide for alternative methods to insure against flood
peril, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, the
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, modified by the amendment
printed in part B of that report, shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further 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; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 2810) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for
military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All
points of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2)
one motion to recommit if applicable.
Sec. 3. The Clerk shall not transmit to the Senate a
message that the House has adopted the conference report to
accompany H.R. 2810 until notified by the Speaker or by
message from the Senate that the Senate has passed H.R. 4374
without amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
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. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 616 provides for
consideration of H.R. 2874, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, and the
conference report to accompany H.R. 2810, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.
H.R. 2874, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, reauthorizes the
National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years, introduces great private
market competition, and provides additional reforms to benefit
policyholders and taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, the Office of Management and Budget has said that the
National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, is not fiscally sustainable
in its current form. The 21st Century Flood Reform Act helps transition
it to a more sustainable program.
Importantly, the bill will help foster a robust product market for
flood insurance, which allows private insurers to compete, in turn,
driving down the price of policies while creating greater consumer
choice. This is a win for policyholders and taxpayers alike.
Representing Alabama's Gulf Coast, it is important to me and my
constituents that they have access to affordable flood insurance
through the National Flood Insurance Program or a private insurer.
I appreciate the inclusion of provisions in the 21st Century Flood
Reform Act to protect current policyholders while making the program
sustainable.
I also appreciate Chairman Hensarling's willingness to work with
Members whose constituents, such as mine, rely very heavily upon the
NFIP to address concerns we raised about the initial version of the
bill that passed out of committee.
All in all, this bill is a positive step toward reauthorizing our
Nation's flood insurance program, which is currently set to expire on
December 8. We must take action to ensure coastal homeowners and others
in flood-prone areas have access to affordable insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the
Senate to get a long-term reauthorization across the finish line and
signed into law by President Trump.
House Resolution 616 also allows for consideration of the final
version of the National Defense Authorization Act that was conferenced
between the House and the Senate, reconciling the differences between
two different versions.
Mr. Speaker, before I go into the substance of the bill, I would like
to take a minute to commend the open and regular order process that has
taken place from start to finish.
As a member of both the Armed Services Committee and the Rules
Committee, I have followed this bill throughout the legislative process
and think we should all be proud of the regular order and the fact that
a wide range of members played a role in crafting the final product.
I applaud Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and the entire
Armed Services Committee staff for their dedication to an open process.
I also appreciate the countless hours they have poured into this
conference report.
Just as a quick reminder, we considered 275 amendments during the
House Armed Services Committee back in June, and another 210 amendments
when the NDAA was considered by the full House in July. In total, 485
amendments have been considered in the House, and, just as important,
there was a clear bipartisan split between the number of majority and
minority amendments.
The conference committee continued this bipartisan and collaborative
process under the leadership of four chairmen and ranking members. Once
again, this year's NDAA is truly a bipartisan and bicameral bill that
provides the best for our military and national security.
Mr. Speaker, this NDAA follows through on our promise to our
servicemen and -women and our constitutional duty to provide for the
common defense of the United States of America.
The FY18 NDAA conference report authorizes a 10 percent increase in
total military spending, reminiscent of the Reagan era defense buildup.
The bill authorizes $626 billion for base budget requirements, $66
billion for overseas contingency operations, and $8 billion for other
defense activities.
[[Page H9192]]
That adds up for a total national defense top line of $700 billion.
I am incredibly proud to support a top-line number high enough to
begin reversing the readiness crisis that has endangered the lives of
our servicemembers and made it harder to defend our country.
Over the past 8 years, and under sequestration, our military has
suffered. We have planes that can't fly, ships that can't sail, and
soldiers who can't deploy, all while the number of threats around the
world keep rising.
I want to acknowledge that this top-line number is significantly
higher than the Budget Control Act cap for defense. I look forward to
continued dialogue with the Appropriations Committee to raise this cap
that has crippled necessary defense spending in recent years.
Every day we operate under a continuing resolution or the BCA caps is
another day we are failing our men and women in uniform. The FY18 NDAA
fulfills the authorization side of the equation, and I am hopeful the
appropriations side will follow.
The FY18 NDAA increases the size of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Army
Guard and Reserve, Naval and Air Reserve, and Air Guard to repair and
restore readiness.
The bill also authorizes construction of 13 new Navy ships, including
three littoral combat ships, as we work to grow toward a 355-ship
fleet.
In a well-deserved benefit for our troops, the NDAA provides for a
2.4 percent pay increase for servicemembers, which is the amount our
troops are entitled to under current law.
Another small but important provision in this bill eliminates the so-
called widow's tax, which requires surviving spouses of servicemembers
killed in action to forfeit the survivor benefit pension annuity. The
financial burden of this tax is something our military families should
not bear.
The bill also continues to advance Chairman Thornberry's priority of
reforming and strengthening the military's acquisition process to make
it more effective and efficient.
Importantly, the legislation takes into account the Trump
administration's $6 billion budget amendment to authorize more funding
for missile defense threats against North Korea, Navy ship repairs, and
more troops in Afghanistan.
Our men and women in uniform all over the world are on a mission to
protect and defend the freedoms we hold dear. The way I see it, our
mission in Congress is to give these brave men and women the resources
they need to succeed. The FY18 NDAA does exactly that and is another
step in a multiyear process of restoring our military strength to
further protect our national security. Ultimately, this bill is about
keeping the American people safe and secure.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 616 and
both of the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Alabama for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2810, the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense
Authorization Act, takes important steps towards strengthening our
national security and supporting our troops.
The conference report authorizes a total of $692 billion in
discretionary budget authority, $26 billion more than the
administration requested.
I am pleased that it raises military pay by 2.4 percent, an increase
from the President's request of 2.1 percent.
{time} 1230
It also strengthens our efforts to counter Russia's campaign to
undermine our democracy by fully funding cybersecurity and cyberspace
operations at $8 billion and it drops harmful restrictions on funding
the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty extension between the United
States and Russia. This treaty continues a bipartisan tradition that
began under President Reagan, verifiably reducing both countries'
nuclear arsenals.
Mr. Speaker, there is one glaring problem with this measure, and that
is that the Budget Control Act imposes a $549 billion cap on defense
spending for fiscal year 2018. This bill blows past that by more than
$143 billion. Unless the Senate, the House, and the President come to
an agreement on lifting or modifying the budget caps, there is no way
that these spending levels can become law. So far, that agreement is
not in the offing and it is past time for a bipartisan compromise on
realistic spending levels for defense and nondefense spending alike.
While I am glad to see this pay increase for our troops, this
legislation does not exist in a vacuum. Later this week, the
Republicans plan to bring to the floor a disastrous tax bill that would
force military families and veterans to finance tax cuts for
corporations and the superwealthy. The bill repeals tax credits that
help veterans find employment. It makes education more expensive for
veterans and undermines the GI Bill. It makes it more expensive for
military families to sell their homes. It eliminates tax relief for
veterans suffering from chronic illnesses.
Veterans Day was just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, and it is no way
for the majority to thank them for their service.
Also before us today is H.R. 2874, which is known as the 21st Century
Flood Reform Act. Now, everybody in this Chamber recognizes the
National Flood Insurance Program is badly in debt, to the tune of $25
billion. The hurricanes this year, together with the flooding across
Louisiana last year, have stretched the program beyond its breaking
point.
Unfortunately, this package will cause more harm than good for the
communities already struggling to rebuild. It will make flood insurance
more expensive for families by increasing premiums.
It also exempts businesses from the requirement to purchase flood
insurance even though the vast majority of policyholders with this
insurance only purchase it because they are required to by law. This
change would take effect beginning in January 2019.
The Independent Community Bankers and a number of other groups oppose
this provision. As businesses pull out of the insurance market and the
number of participating dwindles, responsible businesses that stay in
the market will be forced to bear the burden of greatly increased
premiums. I think these are shortsighted changes that will be felt all
across the insurance market.
Additionally, the legislation doesn't do enough to update the often
out-of-date flood insurance rate maps being used in communities across
the country and in my district. Accurate flood insurance maps prepared
with the most recent mapping technologies would help constituents in
all of our districts better prepare and protect themselves against
flooding. Some current maps are so outdated that the maps don't reflect
changing landscapes and critical flood mitigation improvements. This
bill simply falls short in helping homeowners who want to do the right
thing based off the best available information.
We are in the wake of some of the worst hurricanes our Nation has
ever experienced, and more of them. We are seeing how vital,
affordable, and readily available flood insurance is to so many
communities. It is unconscionable that the majority is moving forward
with this partisan package of bills, unlikely to ever pass the Senate,
because this will only further delay the extension of the program with
1 month left before it expires.
As the majority lurches from crisis to crisis and fritters away
precious legislative time with this partisan approach, we will likely
find ourselves right back here doing this over again in December.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the sponsor of H.R. 2874.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama
for yielding.
First, I want to make a comment about how this process has gone in
coming up with this compromise with the amendment on the flood
insurance package. We have worked in the Financial Services Committee
with outside groups, whether it was the home builders or the realtors
or the insurance industry. We have worked with Members of Congress from
the Gulf States and
[[Page H9193]]
from the East Coast and from the West Coast. We worked with Democrats.
We had a number meetings with the ranking member of the committee, all
taking in their consideration, which has brought us to a compromise
that I don't know that anybody loves, but everyone says is a pretty
darn good bill that strives to make needed reforms in a program that
hasn't been working well. When we have programs that don't work well,
let's try to fix them.
We have a program that, as was just mentioned, is $25 billion in
debt, but that doesn't include the $16 billion we just gave the program
and forgave. So really, it is $41 billion in debt.
So when do we think through the policies of a program that continues
to run deficits, number one, but, number two, continues to incentivize
people to live in harm's way?
I was down in Houston and I got to see a family who was talking about
their next-door neighbor whose house was burning down. He was telling
the story about his neighbor, and as the house started on fire, he sent
the kids outside--like you would because your house is burning--as the
flood waters are rising. The dad went to go put out the fire, and as he
was putting out the fire, he looked out the window and saw his kids
were being swept away by a flood. The current was too strong, so he ran
outside to save his kids and let his house burn.
What are we going to do in that neighborhood that had been flooded
three times in the last 10 years?
We are going to rebuild houses in the same flood plain. This doesn't
make sense. Let's think about a reform that is going to improve the
program, that helps people get out of dangerous areas and get into
better areas that don't flood. Having a flooding house isn't a pleasant
place to live.
Not only that, first responders risk their lives to go save people,
and they die. We are incentivizing through this policy to allow people
to live in these dangerous areas. I don't have a lot of time left, but
the reforms are going to, yes, gently increase some of the premiums for
the most highly subsidized properties called the pre-FIRM properties.
We offer over $1 billion in mitigation to help families flood-proof
their home or get out of their home and go to a better place to live
because this improves the solvency of flood insurance. We are helping
them with mitigation.
We are helping them with mapping, allowing communities that haven't
been mapped to actually map themselves, to pay for it, to take care of
their own future and destiny instead of waiting for the Federal
Government. We allow for a private market to come in and offer you a
premium that might be lower than the Federal Government.
God forbid we offer a family a choice to let the private sector
compete with a public offering. My God, if you get a lower price, that
is great. If you don't get a lower price, you can stay in the Federal
plan.
My goodness, I am going to have some people come up in a second and
say: But you could cherry-pick, and that could jeopardize the solvency
of the program.
The program is insolvent. It is $25 billion in debt--actually, $41
billion, if you include that $16 billion. It is not a solvent program.
Just think if in Houston and in Florida we had people who had bought
insurance in the private market, we would be saving taxpayers money.
This is a commonsense bill that makes the program better, that helps
families, that empowers communities. Let's stand together. A little bit
of reform might go a long way in making government actually work, so I
would encourage all of my colleagues on both side of the aisle to vote
``yes'' for common sense.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
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?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Espaillat) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, there are 2,400 DACA recipients in my district. ``We are
not one,'' ``no somos uno.'' There are 30,000 DACA recipients in my
home State of New York. ``We are not 100,'' ``no somos cien.'' There
are 800,000 DACA recipients in the country. As of this year, there were
more than 10,000 noncitizens serving in the U.S. military and an
additional 12,000 noncitizens under Reserve status. ``We are millions,
count us well,'' ``somos millones, cuentanos bien.''
DREAMers are veterans, teachers, nurses, college students; and
DREAMers are also MacArthur genius fellows. Cristina Jimenez is a
MacArthur genius fellow, a powerhouse championship for immigrant youth,
and, like me, she is also a CUNY alum and she grew up undocumented.
This is why I urge my colleagues to bring a clean Dream Act to the
House floor. H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, would not provide automatic
amnesty, as I have heard some of my colleagues incorrectly say. The
Dream Act has an 8-year conditional basis of permanent residency
status. You have to either work for 3 years, serve in the Armed Forces,
or study. You have to keep a clean record, get a background check, and
a medical exam. Then, and only after then, for a few more years, you
can apply for citizenship.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous
question so that we can immediately bring the Dream Act to the floor
and provide certainty, hope, and opportunity for 800,000 talented young
people. Our country needs them and we cannot afford to wait another
day.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Norman).
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 2874,
the 21st Century Flood Reform Act.
This act is near and dear to my heart. That is how I make my
livelihood. I am a real estate developer. We build houses. We build
commercial projects. All that stops unless reform is made in the Flood
Insurance Program. This bill proposes major reforms to one of the
Federal Government's most broken programs, the National Flood Insurance
Program.
The Government Accountability Office has labeled the NFIP a high-risk
program mainly because policyholders often pay premiums well below the
actual risk of flooding on their properties.
H.R. 2874 requires FEMA to conduct an annual actuarial review of the
status of the NFIP that will allow FEMA to adjust rates appropriately
and help maintain the program's financial stability.
Currently, there are 4.92 million NFIP policies providing $1.23
trillion in coverage to Americans. Many of these properties are what
this bill defines as multiple loss properties, where NFIP claims have
been filed repeatedly.
This bill requires FEMA to raise premiums on multiple loss properties
by 15 percent annually if the premiums do not reflect the full risk.
This is just another step toward FEMA improving the financial stability
of the NFIP.
Often, with the Federal Government, there are changes and agreements
made behind closed doors with little or no public comment. H.R. 2874
requires FEMA to publish an explanation and to hold public hearings in
regards to any changes to premiums on policies. This is an excellent
example of making the government more transparent and helping
policyholders more accountable.
Lastly, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act requires the Government
Accountability Office to conduct a study on how we can simplify the
NFIP. With our country being battered by hurricanes and heavy rainfall,
we need to ensure that the NFIP is placed in sound financial footing
for future generations.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this
all-important legislation.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
[[Page H9194]]
{time} 1245
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New York,
the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill and also to the
rule. Just a few weeks ago, we observed the fifth anniversary of
Superstorm Sandy. New Jersey's recovery from that traumatic event has
been prolonged in part by issues facing the National Flood Insurance
Program. Too many of my constituents are still dealing with high
premiums and inaccurate flood maps or are still waiting for their Sandy
claims appeals to be decided.
We need a long-term NFIP reauthorization that focuses on increasing
affordability, investing in mitigation, capping the profits of flood
insurance companies, and comprehensively restructuring the claims
process--and this bill fails these tests.
H.R. 3823 would undermine the NFIP by allowing the development of a
private flood insurance market, opening the door to allowing insurance
companies to cherry-pick low-risk properties while leaving high-risk
ones in the NFIP. This bill does not do enough to address affordability
issues and actually increases rates for some policyholders. It will
allow commercial properties to opt out of mandatory coverage even if
they are in a high-risk zone, which will further decrease the pool and
weaken the program.
Finally, this bill simply does not do enough to improve transparency
and reform the claims process. Enactment of this legislation would make
flood insurance more expensive and less available, while not actually
addressing the program's many problems.
I have actually introduced legislation to tackle NFIP's issues head-
on. The bill is the bipartisan SAFE NFIP Reauthorization Act, which
would reauthorize the program, cap premium rate increases, authorize
funding for more accurate flood mapping, reform the appeals process,
and cap the compensation of flood insurance companies.
I also offered amendments to the Rules Committee that would improve
this bill, including a 10 percent cap on premium increases, increasing
the increased cost of compliance from $30,000 to $100,000, capping the
profits of flood insurance companies, and other pro-policyholder
provisions, but none of these amendments were accepted by the Rules
Committee.
I hear my Republican colleagues talk about transparency. In fact,
this is the 50th closed rule of the year, an all-time record for closed
rules. They blocked both Democratic and Republican amendments. The
Rules Committee says in its report this is a closed rule. If it is a
closed rule, then how can they talk about transparency or process?
Some of my Republican colleagues who offered amendments that were
denied were Mr. Donovan of New York, affected by Sandy; Mr. Graves of
Louisiana, affected by Katrina; and Mr. Pascrell and I, who went
through Superstorm Sandy.
It is incredible to me that we had a number of Democrats and
Republicans who really wanted to reform the flood insurance program in
an effective way based on their experiences--not some ideology--based
on their experiences in the superstorms that we saw that impacted our
districts, and the Rules Committee denied every one of those
amendments.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I just would point out to the gentleman that
the Democrats have highlighted the number of amendments not made in
order during the first session of the 115th Congress; however, in the
111th Congress, their majority blocked nearly 3,000 amendments, with
roughly 2,400 of those occurring in the first session. So, far be it
from the case that Republicans have blocked an inordinate number of
amendments. We blocked far less amendments than our Democratic
colleagues did when they were in control of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms.
Cheney), who is my fellow colleague on the Rules Committee and the
Armed Services Committee.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague, Mr.
Byrne, for his hard work, both on the Armed Services Committee and on
the Rules Committee, on this important rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule that will
allow for consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2018.
Mr. Speaker, as elected Members of this body, we have no higher
obligation or responsibility than to provide for the support and the
defense of our Nation. No matter what else we do in this body--and we
debate very big, important issues. We debate tax cuts, we debate
healthcare, and these are crucial issues, but none of those issues
matters if we fail to get the resources necessary to defend this Nation
from our adversaries.
For far too long, Mr. Speaker, we have failed to do that. Over the
last 8 years, we have seen policies that have failed to provide the
kind of resources our Defense Department needs. We have also seen, Mr.
Speaker, legislation from this body--in particular, the Budget Control
Act--that has caused significant damage to the military.
We have heard on the Armed Services Committee, week after week,
briefings from every layer of the military--from the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs, from the Secretary of Defense, and from the combatant
commanders--briefings about the extent to which there is a gap that is
growing between our abilities and the abilities of our adversaries.
Now, this is a gap that people seem to want to ignore, Mr. Speaker, but
we do so at our own peril.
I think that we need, as Members of this body, to think very
carefully about what we are going to say to our children and our
grandchildren one day if they say to us: Why didn't you do all you
could to ensure for the defense of this Nation? Why didn't you do all
you could when you were in a position to provide the resources?
Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we don't do all we can is because we
enable the Senate rules. We have gotten ourselves in a situation,
through the Budget Control Act and through the way that we do budgeting
in this House, where we enable the dysfunction of the United States
Senate, and we let the United States Senate be in a position where, in
fact, they prevent us from doing what we know is right from a policy
perspective.
I am very proud of this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because
what this does, in a bipartisan fashion, is begin to fix that. It
begins to remedy the situation. It begins to allow our military to get
out from under the burden, the hole that they have been in for the last
8 years.
Funds authorized in this NDAA will ensure that we are able, for
example, to modernize our strategic forces. It will also ensure, Mr.
Speaker, that we are able to begin to provide funding for the kind of
missile defense that we know we need in a situation in which our
adversaries have gained tremendous ground.
Mr. Speaker, when we have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs come
before the committee and tell us in public session that, if we continue
on the path we are on, within 5 years we will not be able to project
our power, every Member of this body needs to stop everything else they
are doing and listen to that warning. If we can't project our power,
then we cannot defend this Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Wyoming an
additional 30 seconds
Ms. CHENEY. There are many Members of this body, Mr. Speaker, on both
sides, who like to quote a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that the
debt is the biggest national security threat we face. That is only half
of his quote. The second half of his quote was that the debt is the
most significant threat we face because it prevents us from being able
to resource our military.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today to stand in support of
this rule and to stand in support of the National Defense Authorization
Act and the important progress that it allows us to begin to make to
rebuild our military and undo the damage of the last 8 years.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this record-breaking closed rule, the 50th
closed rule in a year, which is more than any time in any yearly period
previously.
[[Page H9195]]
I think our rules should be open. I think closed rules are not good
for this institution regardless of who does it, and I would urge the
majority party to think about open rules so that the legislature can
truly work its way.
The legislation itself includes a handful of measures that I
authored--I am happy about that--to require reporting on Russia's role
in the Balkans, including Serbia's defense relationship with Russia; to
enhance congressional oversight of changes made to policies and legal
interpretations that govern security operations; a strategy to improve
transparency and civilian protection in Nigeria; and a requirement for
a Defense Department official to protect cultural heritage, the looting
and trafficking of which is a funding source for terrorism. We voted on
that here on the floor and it has passed.
I am also pleased that we have included continued support for
Israel's missile defense. This system is critical to Israel's security,
considering the threats that Israel faces from Iran, Hamas, and
Hezbollah.
Mr. Speaker, even though I am ranking member of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, I am glad to see these measures in this bill because
they all belong in this bill. They are related to our national
security. Indeed, I strongly support the measures in this bill that
provide authorities and resources necessary for our military to carry
out its missions.
But, as we have seen again and again in recent years, this defense
authorization continues an unsettling trend toward involving the
Defense Department in activities outside its core competencies. In my
view, we need to preserve and strengthen the important roles of the
State Department and USAID.
We wouldn't ask our diplomats or our development experts to do the
jobs of our men and women in uniform, so we shouldn't be asking our
servicemembers to do the work that has traditionally resided in our
civilian foreign policy agencies.
I want to caution against continuing down this road, and I hope that,
in the years ahead, we can work to support our diplomatic and
development efforts in the same way we support our national defense.
After all, America's security depends on all these efforts working
together.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Let me say, in conclusion, I hope that, in the years ahead, we can
work to support our diplomatic and development efforts in the same way
we support our national defense. After all, America's security depends
on all of these efforts working together, and it is important to
remember that.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from Alabama for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, there are fundamental problems with flood insurance. We
all know that. The program, by some estimates, has a debt, recently, of
up to $24 billion, and it is going to be compounded by Hurricanes
Maria, Irma, and Harvey and the other disasters that we have had this
year. We have had extraordinary damages this year.
But what is being missed is that this legislation really doesn't even
fix the problem. You can look back over the last 37 years. Since 1980,
we have had 218 disasters that have exceeded $1 billion. We have spent
$1.3 trillion responding to these disasters.
This bill is projected to, perhaps, save $18 million a year--$18
million, I will say it again. We have spent $1.3 trillion since 1980.
There are fundamental problems that need to be addressed.
Mr. Speaker, 40 percent of this Nation's population lives in just 10
percent of the land area adjacent to the coast--10 percent. Forty
percent of the population lives there, and it is growing. It is going
up. We have got to get good at resiliently living in these coastal
areas.
Now, let me show you something, and this is what is happening in
Louisiana. Louisiana drains, literally, from Montana to New York, and
the Canadian Provinces are all coming down.
Mr. Speaker, as we get additional development in the United States,
what happens with that water? It comes down to us.
So let me give you a scenario.
Somebody builds their dream home or somebody starts a small business,
and they fully comply with the regulations that are in place at the
time for baseline elevation. They build a home or business exactly
where it is supposed to be. They start getting additional water down
from this watershed or maybe from the coast because the Corps of
Engineers has caused 2,000 square miles of the coast of this Nation to
erode.
So, yes, we are more vulnerable. We are getting more water down or we
have the Gulf of Mexico encroaching on our citizens.
Why should our citizens be responsible for that? They have no control
over what is happening. They have complied with the regulations and
complied with the guidelines at the time of construction.
Mr. Speaker, I view this as a tax. If our citizens are being burdened
with additional fees or expense as a result of the government's
inability to do its job to properly manage resources and water, then
that is not a premium increase; that is a tax, Mr. Speaker.
While I commend people for working on this bill and trying to address
this, the fundamental premise of the bill is flawed. It is
fundamentally flawed. You can't charge people for things over which
they have no control. You can't charge people whenever they stepped up
and did exactly what the government told them to do when they built a
home or built a business.
These things aren't portable structures. You can't just pick up a
home and say, ``I am going to move it.'' You can't pick up a business
and say, ``I am going to move it.''
But that is exactly what this bill does. It increases the premiums
and, in some cases, even kicks them out of their homes and businesses,
these dream homes and these lifesaving investments.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds because I
was very impressed, yesterday, with Mr. Graves and the thoughtful work
that he had done. I am sorry his amendments were not made in order, but
I appreciate very much his homework on this bill, and I agree with him.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy.
I was listening to our friend from Louisiana, and I sympathize with
much of what he was saying. I have been working on flood insurance
reform for 20 years.
{time} 1300
We are caught in a dynamic here where it is never really good enough
and there are challenges for people who played by the rules at the
time.
The problem is that we are not doing a good job of evaluating, moving
forward, and making the changes. It is true that some of this has an
impact on Louisiana. I am sensitive to that. But at the same time,
there are policies that have been resisted by some of those same state
leaders.
We must swallow hard and understand that we are on a path here that
impacts people all across the country. We do not have accurate flood
maps, and people resist updating them. We have many people who are
paying far less than the actuarial costs for their flood insurance.
There are millions more who are subsidizing all this because they are
paying unfair premiums. We do not invest in pre-disaster mitigation. We
will save $4 in disaster relief for each dollar we invest upfront to
protect property and lives.
I am prepared to support the underlying bill. It is not perfect.
There are changes that I would make. I understand some of the
challenges that people are going to suggest in terms of the impact on
some lower-income citizens. I sympathize with that, but the answer is
not to continue to keep people in harm's way. The answer is not to
rebuild people's homes right back where they are going to be putting
their property and their families at risk. We
[[Page H9196]]
should not continue to resist reform, because it is hard. Ultimately,
that adds to the price tag and it adds to the dislocation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we don't lose an
opportunity to start changing this situation.
When the floods came in Houston, I got calls from some reporters
because I had been dealing with problems in Houston going back 20
years. This is an example of where we failed to deal with repetitive
flood loss and where we have watched unchecked sprawl put millions of
people at risk for greater harm.
This bill isn't perfect, but I hope that it starts the process where
we can come together as it goes through the legislative process. I hope
we can make adjustments to start us along that path, and that we start
swallowing hard, making sure that everybody gives up a little.
The Federal Government needs to invest more. People need to stop
building in harm's way. We need to do a better job of flood recovery
and pre-disaster mitigation. I think this bill represents a good faith
start along that path, and I hope we can use it as a foundation for
further progress.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Ross), a very happy Auburn Tigers fan.
Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the rule and
the underlying bill, H.R. 2874.
Homeowners deserve choice; they deserve competition; and, above all,
they need to know the true risk their homes face from floods, the most
costly of all natural disasters.
I believe the underlying bill allows the freedom to insure against
obvious danger that imperils people's homes and their wallets. I am
particularly enthusiastic about the inclusion of my bipartisan
legislation to facilitate the development of a robust private flood
insurance marketplace.
After months and even years of negotiations, we have produced
legislation that appropriately balances the need for affordable flood
insurance with our responsibility to act as faithful stewards of
taxpayer dollars.
Everyone knows that the National Flood Insurance Program is broken.
We should act accordingly. We need to fix it. But before we do that, we
must agree to proceed.
Less than a month ago, many of us voted to bail out this floundering
program, forgiving $16 billion of its debt. But we knew that it would
be irresponsible to merely kick the can down the road. This is the
opportunity to make things right.
I believe we need to proceed with the debate because we need to have
a reasonable and responsible conversation about fixing this problem
before it gets worse. Americans deserve better than a Big Government
insurance monopoly that is unable to pay for the risk it insures.
The 21st Century Flood Reform Act will usher in a new era of consumer
choice, competition, and affordability by empowering policyholders to
purchase the insurance products that best meet their needs.
We are getting rid of the top-down, single-payer approach to
insurance where we pretend there is no danger until there is a tragedy.
Giving consumers choice in a competitive marketplace will not only
drive down costs, but will also help reduce the unacceptable number of
homes that are not protected by flood insurance.
The NFIP can be an important tool for mitigating flood risks and
helping families recover from disasters after they strike, but it
cannot be the only tool. A Federal program that conceals actual risk
through artificially low rates is neither compassionate nor
responsible.
People deserve to know when they are in danger. When the Federal
Government provides them with information that suggests otherwise, we
do more harm than good.
We cannot expect to have educated, thoughtful consumers if we deprive
them of the market information that is needed to make the smart
decisions. By putting policyholders on a slow path to sound premium
rates, we are stepping towards a future where the threats of major
floods are confronted before they are realized.
I think we all agree that more needs to be done to mitigate flood
risks and incentivize investments in resiliency. We can take the first
steps by eliminating the false security that inoculates our society to
the dangers of flooding.
Let's remove the blindfold we have placed over the public's eyes.
Let's gradually walk back the subsidies that conceal a homeowners risk.
It is time for this Nation to confront this threat with clear eyes and
a vision for the future. This bill is the first step in the right
direction.
In closing, I want to thank Chairman Hensarling and Housing and
Insurance Subcommittee Chairman Duffy for their tenacity and commitment
to paving the way for a safer and more affordable system for managing
flood risks in this country. Flood insurance is one of those rare
issues that transcends political boundaries.
I once again urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and also
on the underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act isn't perfect.
Most notably, it blows past the caps implemented under the Budget
Control Act. But there are areas of common ground in this bill,
including a pay raise for our military and investments to fill the
genuine readiness gaps in our Armed Forces.
I want to point out that they are the result of something that is all
too often nonexistent under the majority, and that is regular order. I
agree with what my colleague said, to see a bill under regular order is
a downright joy. I hope we do more of it.
A hearing and a markup were held for this bill and colleagues from
both sides of the aisle were consulted. That is how the Chamber was
designed to function, but, today, it hardly functions like that at all.
It is a shame that we don't also see the majority put this model to
use for other major legislation like healthcare and tax reform, which
we will be rushing through to get to tomorrow.
This is a process that we didn't see for the other measure before us
today, which is H.R. 2874. No hearing was ever held on the package in
its entirety. It was changed right up until it was considered by the
Rules Committee earlier this week in an effort not to get Democrat
support, but to get enough support from Members of the majority so that
it could pass on a party-line vote.
That is what we see under this leadership: no hearings and rarely any
markups.
Legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would impact
one-sixth of our economy, was passed without so much as a score from
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office outlining its impacts and
its costs.
This Congress has broken the record for the use of closed rules,
which prevents any amendments from being offered by either side on the
House floor. It is now the most closed Congress ever.
In fact, one of the rules before us right now is closed. We are even
likely to consider the majority's bipartisan tax plan this week--
actually, tomorrow--which would increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion,
yet under another closed rule and without scoring.
The United States Congress has been called the greatest deliberative
body in the world. I think it is time the majority change course and
actually allow the great debates about the issues that we face. The
legislation we consider would certainly be better for it.
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. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a coastal area of Alabama, and flood
insurance is extremely important to many of my constituents. It is very
important to me to fulfill my job on their behalf to make sure that we
have a Flood Insurance Program that is there for many years to come.
But we know that it is actuarially insolvent. So we have to make
changes in the program.
As the gentleman from Oregon said, change is hard and reforms are
hard.
[[Page H9197]]
But the gentleman from Florida and, before him, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, the sponsor of the bill, made very good points. The reforms
we are making in this bill for the Flood Insurance Program will allow
it to be successful for years to come and also protect the taxpayers of
America. I think we have a responsibility to do that.
The other bill under this rule, the conference report on the National
Defense Authorization Act, represents a very important inflection
point.
We are now moving to repair the damage we have done to our military
these last several years. This is a 10 percent increase for our
military so that we can help them rebuild their readiness and the
equipment they need to defend us with this ever-increasing matrix of
threats, not the least of which is North Korea. We put even more money
in this authorization to defend against a missile attack from North
Korea.
We are at the beginning of something historic here with this bill,
and that is rebuilding the United States military, much like it was
done 30-plus years ago when President Reagan was in office.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution
616 and the underlying bills.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Slaughter for
her tremendous leadership on so many of these very critical issues.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to H.R.
2810, the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. This
bill authorizes $700 billion in defense spending for our already out-
of-control Pentagon budget. It would also increase funding by $66
billion for wars that Congress has never debated or voted on. And once
again, my Republican colleagues have used off-the-books spending
gimmicks to further expand the already-bloated Pentagon budget.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough.
Instead of writing blank checks to the Pentagon, Congress needs to
live up to its constitutional obligation to debate matters of war and
peace. We need to rip up the 2001 blank check for endless war. We need
to stop funding wars without end.
Simply put, Mr. Speaker, we need to do our job.
And this Defense Authorization Act does just the opposite. It allows
Congress to kick the can down the road AGAIN, while funding wars with
no debate on the costs and consequences to our troops or to the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, I do have to say that I am pleased by the passage of my
amendment, which I co-authored with my good friend Congressman Burgess,
to report on the audit-readiness of the Pentagon. This is a good first
step, but much work remains to bring some accountability to Pentagon
spending.
So I call on Speaker Ryan to act to actually audit bloated Pentagon
spending and to bring forth an authorization so Congress can vote up or
down on these wars.
I urge my colleagues to vote 'NO' on the Rule and the underlying bill
and reject this wasteful spending.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 616 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. 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. 5. 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. BYRNE. 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
Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234,
nays 189, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 626]
YEAS--234
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
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)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
[[Page H9198]]
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
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
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
Sanford
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
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--189
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
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)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
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
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Black
Bridenstine
Dent
Johnson, Sam
McGovern
Pelosi
Pocan
Rush
Visclosky
Woodall
{time} 1337
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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.
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 187, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 627]
YEAS--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
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
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
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
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
Rosen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
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
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NAYS--187
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
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
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)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
[[Page H9199]]
Soto
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Black
Bridenstine
Cole
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Holding
Johnson, Sam
McGovern
Pelosi
Pocan
Rush
Visclosky
Woodal
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1344
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 for:
Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 627.
____________________