[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 17, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H423-H429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3326, WORLD BANK ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2954, HOME MORTGAGE
DISCLOSURE ADJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 693 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 693
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3326) to increase accountability, combat
corruption, and strengthen management effectiveness at the
World Bank. 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
Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Financial Services now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in part A of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2954) to amend
the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 to specify which
depository institutions are subject to the maintenance of
records and disclosure requirements of such Act, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services
now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in
part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, 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.
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 gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
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.
{time} 1230
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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying
legislation.
This rule makes in order two bills reported favorably by the
Committee on Financial Services. In addition, the rule makes in order a
majority of the amendments submitted.
These bills were the subject of hearings in the Financial Services
Committee, and both were marked up and reported favorably to the House.
Both bills received bipartisan support in the committee, and I expect
that we will see bipartisan support for both bills on the floor this
week.
Mr. Speaker, formed in 1944, the World Bank is the oldest
multilateral development bank. As a post-World War II effort of
international cooperation, the goal of the World Bank was to fund
reconstruction efforts in war-torn nations.
In 1960, the United States pushed for the creation of the
International Development Association within the World Bank. Where the
original World Bank division funded middle-income countries, the IDA
was created to make concessional loans; that is, loans with low
interest rates and long repayment periods to the world's poorest
countries.
The number of countries served by the IDA currently stands at 75. The
IDA is typically the single largest source of funding for critical
social programs in these low-income countries. However, the bill before
us reduces the United States' contribution to the IDA.
The IDA is funded through replenishments by donor countries. We are
currently in the 18th replenishment period, known as IDA-18. The bill
reduces the United States' contribution in IDA-18 by 15 percent.
Further, the bill requires that the Treasury Department certify that
the World Bank reform its practices and lending controls in relation to
the IDA.
A 2016 report commissioned by the World Bank reveals serious problems
with one particular IDA project in Uganda. While IDA's role is to
reduce inequality and support the development of civil society, the
report outlines numerous failures to achieve these objectives on the
part of the IDA.
The report details how IDA financing of a project in Uganda led to
systemic spreading of HIV/AIDS, sexual abuse of minors, child labor,
retaliation against local citizens, gender-based violence, and other
gross abuses of powerless Ugandans. While the IDA took several steps,
including withdrawing some loans from this particular project, there is
much concern that this project is indicative of many others.
The House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing at which
testimony was received from the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists indicating that governments that allow or
participate in the abuse of their citizens and the subjugation of the
poor have not been turned away by the World Bank.
The testimony reads in part: ``We found instead that the bank
repeatedly funded governments that not only failed to adequately
resettle communities, but in some cases were accused of human rights
abuses such as rape, murder, and violent evictions associated with bank
projects. We found in several cases that the World Bank continued to
bankroll these borrowers
[[Page H424]]
even after evidence of these abuses came to light.''
Mr. Speaker, the IDA has a quality control problem, and we are right
in reducing their funding.
As if the abuse of citizens by corrupt governments is not enough, the
committee has also uncovered evidence that the World Bank has serious
internal problems as well.
According to the World Bank's Independent Evaluation Group, World
Bank staff has long been incentivized to simply get more loans out the
door without any incentive to ensure the quality of the projects. This
has been a longstanding trend documented since the early 1990s.
But it is not just perverse incentives. The World Bank has not
focused enough on rigidly guarding itself against internal corruption.
A professor from Caltech testified before the committee that it was
common for World Bank projects to be captured by corrupt governments
and that World Bank staff try to suppress corruption investigations.
She said: ``Corruption investigations can shut down projects and
derail careers. They are also inconvenient for senior management in the
bank who are balancing delicate relationships with their country
clients.''
Due to these problems, the underlying bill protects American
taxpayers by withholding funding from the World Bank until these
deficiencies are fixed.
Mr. Speaker, not only should we be holding international
organizations accountable, we should also be holding our own government
accountable, and the second bill made in order under this rule does
just that.
In 2011, Dodd-Frank transferred to the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau regulatory authority over home mortgages. Since then, CFPB has
made information reporting by lenders more extensive.
The impact of these increased regulations has led to greater costs to
lenders. Consequently, smaller lenders have had to pass on these costs
directly to potential borrowers. This has reduced access to affordable
credit to borrowers who would typically seek out smaller lending
institutions.
The underlying bill is simple: exempt small lenders from CFPB's
onerous reporting requirements.
Under the leadership of Chairman Hensarling, House Republicans have
consistently put forward a plan to reform the CFPB. However, until we
can pass broader reforms, we should do everything we can to protect
Americans from harmful regulations pushed on them by the CFPB.
Today, we have two bills before us that hold powerful organizations
accountable to American taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and these
bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, once again, Congress finds itself rushing to try to pass
legislation to keep the government open; ensure that our youngest, most
vulnerable Americans have access to health insurance; and protect
young, aspiring Americans from being deported from the only country
they have known as home. Yet here we are debating other things with the
clock running out in the eleventh hour--issues that, no doubt, have a
few people here and there who care about them, but zero people have
called my office on, Mr. Speaker.
My constituents are demanding that we address access to the childhood
healthcare insurance program and demanding that we act on the DREAMers
with the deadline approaching and 100-plus DREAMers every day losing
their status.
It sounds like, from all we are hearing, that the House is going to
consider yet another short-term spending bill to maybe keep the
government running for another 4 weeks or 6 weeks. It is actually the
fourth short-term spending bill for this year, not allowing the
Department of Defense to plan to keep our country safe and not allowing
any of the departments across the Federal Government to make any of the
investments they need or have any degree of certainty that contractors
will be paid.
It is no way to govern, Mr. Speaker. Part of the reason that we are
left doing this is we are using our precious floor time on all of these
other issues like the ones before us today.
It is not that these issues don't deserve their day in the sun, and
we will talk about them for the rest of the day today, apparently, but
we are facing the closure of the entire Federal Government in 3 days if
we don't act. We are doing the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.
This is an absurd exercise in doing some narrowly tailored special
interest bills rather than addressing what we all know to be the 1,000-
pound gorillas in the room.
Seniors, military veterans, and people with disabilities shouldn't
have to question whether they will actually receive their benefits
month to month because we don't know whether the government will remain
open. In the meanwhile, Republicans, Democrats, and the White House are
all trying to put forward bipartisan solutions for the hundreds of
thousands of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients and
DREAMers, and we could be debating that on the floor and putting
together the final package now to do that by this Friday. But instead,
we are discussing these bills that my constituents aren't telling me
that they are sending me to Washington to pass.
A lot of my colleagues say that the deadline for DACA isn't until
March, but, in reality, over 100 deferred action DREAMers every day
lose their protected status as their benefits expire. Every day the
Republicans fail to act, they are creating over 100 more illegal
immigrants in this country. If Republicans fail to act by March, they
will have created over 800,000 more people here illegally in our
country.
We have about 18,000 DREAMers in Colorado able to work legally today.
They have come from countries near and far in search of a better life
for themselves and their families. They grew up in our schools, sports
teams, cheerleaders, don't know any other country, and many of them
don't speak any other language.
One DREAMer that I have gotten to know from Colorado is Anarely,
whose family stayed in Colorado to help take care of their grandmother.
Anarely is a triple major at Colorado State University, studying
political science, ethnic studies, and international relations. She has
built a life in Colorado--the only life she knows--and continues to
build a bright future in the U.S. if we can give her the certainty with
regard to her legal ability to work and, of course, take her place
alongside other American citizens.
What makes America so great is we are a country of immigrants made up
of people from all backgrounds, all quarters of the world. We embrace
people from different cultures and different countries. We value the
contributions based on the individual and the values of individual
responsibility and hard work. That is what makes our country and our
communities vibrant and our economy successful.
Mr. Speaker, a group of bipartisan House and Senate Members are
working together to find a solution to protect DREAMers and improve
border security. I am proud to cosponsor the USA Act, which we dropped
yesterday with Mr. Hurd and Mr. Aguilar which would provide DREAMers
long-term protections and improve our border security to prevent this
kind of situation from happening again.
But instead of legislation that addresses long-term funding or
protects aspiring Americans, here we are bringing bills to talk around
the fringes about consumer protections and, of course, a bill that
would chip away at reproductive health rights.
The rule we are debating today considers two pieces of legislation
that are not anything to do with the expiration at the end of this week
of government funding or the over 100 DREAMers who lose their status
every day--the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the World Bank
Accountability Act.
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act has long been a tool to monitor the
mortgage lending practices and patterns of financial institutions to
ensure equal and fair access to credit. The information that lenders
are required to report shows that they are meeting the housing
financing needs of their communities. HMDA data is very important in
fair lending assessments and helps make determinations of where to
target community development resources.
Congress has made changes to HMDA as a response to legitimate
concerns about the role that widespread predatory lending played in the
financial
[[Page H425]]
crisis. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was charged with
updating how lenders report HMDA.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted a standard for the
new reporting requirements that took into account the burdens imposed
on banks by new standards to ensure that the data is being reported to
monitor fair lending practices to prevent another systemic meltdown
like we had in 2008 and 2009.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau even temporarily raised the
reporting threshold eliminating the need for low-volume banks to report
through 2019, in order to conduct research to determine the right way
to document open-ended loans. We should not codify this threshold,
removing the flexibility of the agency that we in Congress set up to
prevent another financial meltdown. It would literally tie their hands
and prevent them from acting, even if there was a need to, to prevent a
financial meltdown.
I strongly support regulatory relief for community banks and small
financial institutions. This bill would actually exempt 85 percent of
depository financial institutions and 48 percent of nondepository
lenders.
Congress should want to encourage increased access to housing finance
and combat unlawful practices that can prey on vulnerable home buyers
or lead to systemic risk which leads to people coming to this town
demanding another Republican taxpayer bailout.
This rule also considers debate for H.R. 3326, the World Bank
Accountability Act--another issue that does not relate to the
expiration of government funding at the end of the week, does not
relate to the illegal aliens that the Republicans are creating every
day, and does not relate to the Children's Health Insurance Program
expiring.
What it does is it places a restriction on funding to the World Bank
International Development Association--again, something I am not
hearing from my constituents on, that they are not sending me to
Washington and demanding that I take action on--and try to get them to
reform to improve their management accountability and fight extremism,
which I am sure is fine. It is true that, of course, they probably need
to improve accountability and oversight, and Congress can have this
discussion, but here we are, backs to the wall, the government is about
to close, DREAMers are facing deportation, children are going without
healthcare, and, yes, of course, World Bank accountability, great,
let's discuss it, but can't we do it next week after we get through
this?
In fact, I believe the Republicans are sending us all on vacation
next week. I think most Americans wish they had 10 days off at the end
of January. I don't understand this. It makes no sense. I think
Congress is about to do a last-minute funding bill and then send every
Member of Congress on a 10-day vacation saying: Good job, we dealt with
World Bank accountability. That is what the voters want. Forget about
government shutdowns, forget about Republicans creating more illegal
aliens, forget about Republicans plunging our Nation deeper into debt
with their tax-and-spend policies. That is where we are headed, Mr.
Speaker.
{time} 1245
Of course, we should have a debate on the best way to make reforms in
the U.S. and engage the World Bank to encourage those reforms.
Again, fiddling while Rome burns, Mr. Speaker, it is a common theme
over here, and the American people are seeing through it, which is why
the approval rating of this institution is under 15 percent--no shock.
We can be debating World Bank accountability every day for the next
year if you want. That is why people think this body is out of touch.
We are just not addressing or dealing with the issues the American
people sent us here to deal with: skyrocketing debt; over 12 million
people who are here illegally, and yet this Congress fails to take up
comprehensive immigration reform; expiration of the Children's Health
Insurance Program; fixing the Affordable Care Act.
Withholding funds to the IDA has a lot of positives and negatives. We
could influence them to act. Others fear it could punish people in the
developing world. It could hamper their ability to fight famine. It
could force the necessary reforms.
Again, fine, we will have that discussion under this rule for an hour
or two and Congress will debate that. Congress will pass a bill, and we
will see whether the Senate even takes it up. They often don't.
But, again, it is backs to the wall, fiddling while Rome burns, the
eleventh hour, record debt, Republicans creating more illegal
immigrants every day, and here we are debating accountability for
different aid programs.
The 15 percent must be, like, the family members and cousins of the
Republican Members. I don't know anybody who is satisfied with this
Congress, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend from Colorado that the House did pass
the Children's Health Insurance Program bill in November. We did send
it to the Senate. Perhaps if he could talk to the leadership in his
party over in the Senate, we could get that bill passed in the Senate
instead of blocked, and we could deal with a very important issue, an
issue in Colorado that is absolutely essential, because the money is
running out in Colorado, one of the few States where it is even more
important than many of the other States.
I appreciate my colleague's concern on this issue. I share his
concern. The House acted responsibly in a broad, bipartisan bill.
Hopefully, we can get our friends over in the Senate to get more done.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Emmer), my good friend and the sponsor of one of the bills today.
Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, every citizen in our Nation deserves a chance
to achieve their American Dream. For thousands across the country,
their American Dream consists of owning a home or starting their own
business. Some laws have proven helpful in achieving this dream; others
have created obstacles by codifying government overreach.
In 1975, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act was enacted. This important
law exposed and helped eliminate discriminatory lending practices,
particularly against minorities. In short, this law helped more
Americans realize their dream of owning a house.
Over the years, however, the disclosure required by the law has
expanded away from the original intent and has actually become an
obstacle preventing small, medium, and local lenders from helping
aspiring homeowners.
In 2015, the Dodd-Frank-created agency, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, or CFPB, demanded from lenders more than double the
amount of data originally required under the Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act. That double-the-data rule took effect on the first of this month.
Larger financial firms are able to adapt. In fact, most, if not all,
continue to be in the home mortgage business; but for smaller financial
firms, for the family-owned bank on Main Street, USA, the double-the-
data rule means making fewer mortgages or none at all. This unintended
result is something each of us has heard over and over again in our
home districts.
Again, these are not the Wells Fargos, Bank of Americas, or J.P.
Morgans. These are the small guys on Main Street, in small towns all
across Minnesota and our country.
As a direct result of having fewer and fewer small, medium, and local
lenders in the home mortgage business or offering the capital necessary
for their neighbor's small business to get off the ground, the CFPB's
rule has put the American Dream out of reach for many Americans.
Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to rightsize government
regulation to create more opportunity. We have the opportunity to
encourage small and medium financial institutions in our local
communities to keep their doors open, to make mortgages again, to make
loans to would-be entrepreneurs, in short, to fund the dreams of their
neighbors and friends. We have the opportunity to expand not the law
but, rather and instead, the number of Americans who can own a home or
start their own business.
I first introduced the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act when I
[[Page H426]]
came to Congress in 2015. It is a bill that will keep the original
intent of the 1975 HMDA law. Nothing will overwrite or exempt any
financial institution, big or small, from reporting data related to
race or gender. It is a bill that will put a stop to the loss of
lenders we see in our home districts by providing desperately needed
regulatory relief for Main Street banks and credit unions. I am proud
to say it is a bill that has been perfected with input from both sides
of the aisle and in both Chambers.
Our goal today shouldn't be to expand the law. Our goal today should
be to expand the number of Americans who want to get one step closer to
achieving their American Dream, whether it is owning a home or starting
a business. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2954 will help us achieve this goal.
If my colleagues share the goal, then I ask you to vote ``yes'' on
H.R. 2954 and pass the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last week, President Trump tweeted: ``The Democrats are
all talk and no action. They are doing nothing to fix DACA.'' That is
deeply insulting to those of us who have worked so hard for years. I
was even here when the Democrats passed the DREAM Act in December of
2010.
This is the 18th time we have attempted to bring up the bipartisan
bill, H.R. 3440. We are about to do it again with my colleague, Mr.
Gomez. The Dream Act makes our position clear. We want immigration
policies that make America safer. We want to make sure that our
aspiring, de facto Americans can take their place alongside of us with
the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
Unfortunately, President Trump made his position clear, as well. I am
not sure which position; he changes every other day. But at times, he
said he will sign whatever we do. At other times, he said:
My standard is very simple: America first, and Make America
Great Again.
That is an easy one. This bill we bring up if we defeat the previous
question will absolutely make America greater. According to the
conservative think tank CATO, repealing DACA would actually cost the
government over $60 billion, reduce economic growth by $280 billion,
and make us all poorer.
We just want to make America wealthier, make us better, and recognize
the aspiring Americans and let them work hard and play by the rules and
pay taxes and live the American Dream. That is an America first policy
that we can all get behind.
This is the 18th attempt here to do this. But I am a Jewish American,
and 18 is actually a lucky number. ``Chai'' means ``life,'' when you do
the numerology. Mr. Gomez is lucky to be here for number 18. For our
Jewish friends watching on C-SPAN, Mr. Speaker, they will recognize
that. It is kind of like seven. I don't know if seven is a Christian
lucky number or pagan or what, but I have heard seven is a lucky
number, too.
But 18 means life, and this is life for the DREAMers. That is what
Mr. Gomez's motion is all about: it is letting young people who have
that uncertainty and don't even know if they can go to their job and
work hard come March, or even come today or tomorrow for the over 100 a
day whose status is expiring.
I really hope that my Republican colleagues join Mr. Gomez and me in
defeating the previous question so we can bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream
Act, which would pass this body, Mr. Speaker. You and I know that. It
is bipartisan, bicameral. It would help thousands of young people who
are Americans in every single way--de facto Americans, aspiring
Americans--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
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Gomez) to discuss our proposal for the 18th time: chai,
or life.
Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues about the
American Dream and why their families came to our great country.
Was it to build a better future for their children so they could live
and attend school in the greatest country in the history of the world?
Was it so they could work and live in a safe place without fear of
violence?
Was it because they knew that, if they came here, no matter where
they are from, no matter what God they worship, if they work hard,
contribute to our country, and believe in the ideals of America that
all men and women are created equal, then you deserve a place here in
the United States of America?
The answer to these questions is ``yes.'' Our ancestors and parents
came to the United States for all these reasons and more.
That answer holds true for hundreds of thousands of DREAMers and
their parents who live and work and attend school here in the United
States without fear of deportation thanks to DACA. Yet, on September 5,
the Trump administration destroyed the American Dream for 800,000 young
people and their families by recklessly terminating DACA.
One of those 800,000 DREAMers is Itayu Torres, a proud DACA recipient
from my district, the 34th Congressional District of California. She
was born in Oaxaca, Mexico, and arrived in my district before she
turned 1. The United States is the only place she has ever known as her
country, and she is as American as you and I, but she was forced to
live with the burden of her legal status.
At the age of 14, she found out she didn't have legal status when she
tried to travel out of State to play in a soccer tournament. That fear
of being deported if she left her State of California prevented her
from leaving.
But her life changed when she became a DACA recipient. Thanks to
DACA, she enrolled in a liberal arts college in Maryland. She no longer
had to live in crippling fear as she goes about her day-to-day life.
DREAMers like Itayu deserve the chance to succeed and contribute to
our great country. That is why I urge my colleagues to defeat the
previous question, so we can bring up the Dream Act to give 800,000
DREAMers a shot at the American Dream.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Barr), chair of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and
Trade.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this combined rule
that will enable the people's House to consider both the World Bank
Accountability Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act.
Before I speak about why I support this rule, I do want to respond to
the other gentleman from Colorado saying that this House is not doing
the people's business. In fact, this House is dealing with year-end
spending, and we are doing it right now. We are working on immigration
reforms. To suggest otherwise is simply not true.
In fact, on year-end spending, this House passed all appropriations
bills ahead of time, ahead of schedule, before the end of the fiscal
year. Those bills were sent over to the Senate.
This House also dealt with the issues related to the Children's
Health Insurance Program, dealt with community health centers and a
whole range of other issues. Those pieces of legislation went over to
the Senate.
So the issue is really with the Senate, it is not with this House.
Furthermore, this House has passed historic tax reform that has
become law. It has passed over 16 Congressional Review Acts rolling
back Obama-era regulations and rules that were holding back our
economy. The result is millions of jobs were created and the best
economy we have seen in a decade.
So it is just simply not true to suggest that this House is not doing
the people's business. We are dealing with some important additional
issues this week. We can do both: plan for the year-end spending
debates with the Senate and also reauthorize the World Bank.
The World Bank's mission is to reduce poverty around the globe.
However, during congressional oversight hearings, it has become clear
that the World Bank is falling short of its antipoverty mission.
[[Page H427]]
As early as 1992, outside reviews of the World Bank--and, later, its
own reviews--concluded that a ``pressure to lend'' on staff, through
the staff evaluation process, has created perverse incentives for some
World Bank employees to focus on loan volume in order to receive a
raise or a promotion rather than what really matters, which is poverty
reduction outcomes.
In addition, there are numerous examples of where the very group of
people that was supposed to be helped through World Bank assistance was
actually harmed by a corrupt government or its cronies. From violent
evictions to rape, to murder, the list of human rights violations goes
on and on.
One of the most egregious examples of human rights violations was the
Uganda crisis, where contractors were sexually abusing a dozen or more
girls, and it took the World Bank years to stop it. Even more
perplexing, the World Bank's country manager for the Uganda project
was, disturbingly, promoted to become World Bank country director for
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where allegations, not
surprisingly, of sexual and gender-based violence have resurfaced in
2017.
{time} 1300
For these reasons and more, I support the World Bank Accountability
Act, which requires the World Bank to fix its problems or face a 15 to
30 percent reduction of the U.S. contribution to the World Bank's
International Development Association fund, or, as it is commonly
called, IDA.
More specifically, the bill authorizes $3.3 billion for IDA over the
next 3 years and mandates that the World Bank must align its incentives
for employees with the World Bank's goals of poverty reduction, ending
the ``pressure to lend'' problem that is pervasive today. Throwing
money at this problem is not the answer, but getting results and doing
so without these kind of terrible, horrific scandals is critically
important.
The legislation also requires the World Bank to fix failures
identified in the Uganda sexual abuse crisis so that nothing like that
ever happens again.
Additionally, the legislation requires the World Bank, through its
various tools, to support property rights, due process of law, and
economic freedom. The World Bank must also demonstrate that none of its
resources have been used to fund terrorism, and must also improve its
ability to detect and minimize corruption. If the World Bank does all
of these commonsense reforms, then it will receive its full U.S.
contribution for IDA. But if it fails to do this, then the World Bank
doesn't deserve the full funding backed by U.S. taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I also am a strong supporter of the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Adjustment Act. This much-needed legislation exempts
community financial institutions, such as small banks and credit
unions, from the onerous doubling of Home Mortgage Disclosure
Adjustment Act reporting requirements if they make 500 or fewer
mortgages and 500 or fewer home equity lines of credit each of the
preceding 2 years.
The lenders I have spoken to say that, without relief, they will have
to devote more resources to compliance costs, rather than deploying
more capital into our economies to benefit working families and
businesses.
Instead of having to collect superfluous redundant data, let's allow
and liberate our community financial institutions to do what they want
to do, and what they should be doing, in their core mission, and that
is serving their customers and providing loans.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Emmer for his hard work on the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act. I thank Chairman Hensarling also
for his leadership on both of these bills.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both of these important
pieces of legislation.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, here we go. We are finding ourselves staring down self-
created deadlines, and I want to be clear about that. The deadline for
the expiration of the DREAMers in March and the fact that 100 are
expiring every day is self-created by President Trump. It is a
manufactured crisis. We, of course, could do immigration reform while
not having our backs to the wall on that issue.
This shutdown of the government is a construct of this body, this
House. They said that they would only fund the government through
January 19. So we are facing another deadline. Again, I believe, from
what I am hearing, that Congress will then create another artificial
crisis sometime in February, when we are going to be facing a
government shutdown again.
All in the face of record deficits and tax-and-spend Republican
policies, the American people have had enough.
Hundreds of thousands of DREAMers are at risk of deportation by this
administration.
Millions of children are at risk of losing their health insurance.
We are all being plunged deeper and deeper into debt, not just for
ourselves, but our future generations: my kids and many of our
grandkids, for those who have them.
We are facing another government shutdown of necessary, important
government services, including economic drivers in areas I represent,
like Rocky Mountain National Park, with over 3 million tourists a year.
It would close down if the government shuts down.
Air traffic controllers. So many other important parts of our
necessary infrastructure to succeed as a country faces an expiration
this Friday.
Even if somehow the Republicans say, ``Okay, here is another 2 or 3
weeks of funding,'' the uncertainty that that creates--meaning they
can't plan for short- to medium-term capital projects: a simple repair
that might take more than 3 weeks; knocking down a wall; fixing a
building; making a hire and an employee not knowing whether they are
going to have a job in 3 weeks, or contractors not knowing whether they
are going to be paid, and then having to reflect that in their pricing
and ultimately charging the taxpayers more for the work they are doing
because they don't know if the government will pay.
What kind of country are we running, Mr. Speaker?
I know we can do better, and that starts by defeating the previous
question so that we can just pass the Dream Act and move on. It will
pass. Sixty, seventy, or eighty percent of this body will probably vote
for it. I know there are people who don't like it. Let the people's
House work its will. Let us vote. That is what we are here to do, Mr.
Speaker--Republicans and Democrats. Let us work our will.
We have the votes on the Dream Act and we have the votes to keep the
government open, if you simply allow us to have an open process to do
it. That is what this floor time should be used for today. This is
precious floor time--the time that we are in session debating--
especially considering Republicans are sending Congress on a 10-day
vacation at the end of this week. Let's use this floor time to do what
matters.
Sure, there will be a day to discuss the finer points of World Bank
policies and the finer points of the threshold for regulatory
forbearance for mortgage cutoffs. Those things are fine, Mr. Speaker.
Those are fine to discuss, but not while the Republicans are creating
over 100 more illegal immigrants a day and they are going to create
800,000 more in just a couple of months; not when the Republicans are
plunging our Nation deeper and deeper into debt with their tax-and-
spend policies; not when Republicans are forcing another government
shutdown, if not this week, then in 3 weeks or in 4 weeks.
Crisis to crisis to crisis, manufactured crisis to manufactured
crisis to manufactured crisis, the American people count on us to be
stewards of the greatest Republic that has ever been created on the
face of this Earth. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, Congress is letting them
down. Let's defeat the previous question and defeat this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Overlooking corruption and abuse is unacceptable in any governing
body, particularly one funded by the United States.
It is clear that serious reforms and oversight are needed at the
World Bank. The International Development Association has strayed from
its mission to help combat inequality around the world.
[[Page H428]]
The World Bank Accountability Act puts our international partners on
notice that the United States is not simply going to stand by and allow
abuses to continue.
And while we stand up for the underprivileged around the world, we
also must ensure that every American has equal access to our own
financial institutions.
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Adjustment Act ensures that CFPB
regulations do not shut out certain groups of Americans.
I thank Chairman Hensarling for putting these bills forward. I thank
my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee, who have joined me
on the floor today to make the case for these efforts. I thank Chairman
Sessions for his leadership on the Rules Committee and for providing
the debate on these issues today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule
and supporting the underlying bills. We must ensure that American
taxpayer money is not spent on corrupt regimes and that all Americans
have access to financing here in the U.S.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 693 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
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. 4. 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 (Mr. Womack). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. 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 House Resolution 693, if ordered; and
Suspending the rules and passing H.R. 4258.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 187, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 20]
YEAS--230
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
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
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)
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
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
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
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
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
[[Page H429]]
NAYS--187
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
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
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
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
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
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
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)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--13
Amodei
Barletta
Brady (TX)
Cummings
Kind
Lewis (GA)
Long
Noem
Poe (TX)
Rush
Scalise
Schneider
Vela
{time} 1335
Mr. GUTIERREZ and Ms. GABBARD changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. BUDD and BISHOP of Michigan changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 188, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 21]
AYES--228
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
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
Frelinghuysen
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)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
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
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--188
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
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
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
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
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
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
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Amodei
Brady (TX)
Cummings
Gaetz
Kind
King (IA)
LaMalfa
Lewis (GA)
Long
Noem
Poe (TX)
Scalise
Schneider
Vela
{time} 1345
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.
____________________