[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3513-H3520]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4, FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018; 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3144, PROVIDING FOR THE OPERATIONS 
     OF THE FEDERAL COLUMBIA RIVER POWER SYSTEM; AND PROVIDING FOR 
 PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 30, 2018, THROUGH MAY 4, 2018

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 839 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 839

       Resolved, That (a) 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. 4) to reauthorize programs of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as

[[Page H3514]]

     read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived.
        (b) No amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
     those printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc 
     described in subsection (e).
       (c) Each amendment printed in part A of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules shall be considered 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.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in part 
     A of the report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en 
     bloc described in subsection (e) are waived.
       (e) It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or his 
     designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules not 
     earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to 
     this subsection shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure or their designees, 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.
       (f) 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.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3144) to 
     provide for operations of the Federal Columbia River Power 
     System pursuant to a certain operation plan for a specified 
     period of time, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. 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 Natural 
     Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     April 30, 2018, through May 4, 2018 --
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), 
the newest member of the Rules Committee, 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. WOODALL. 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 Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration 
of two bills: H.R. 4, which is the FAA Reauthorization Act, and a 
closed rule for H.R. 3144, which would adjust operations at the Federal 
Columbia River Power System.
  We are lucky today, Mr. Speaker, in that we will have Mr. Newhouse, 
who is an expert from Washington State on H.R. 3144, come down to the 
floor and talk extensively about that measure and why it is important 
for Washington State. But before we talk about Washington State, I want 
to talk about the FAA reauthorization bill as well.
  I would point out, Mr. Speaker, it is not every rule in every case we 
are able to make every Rules Committee member's amendment in order, but 
we are fortunate today that, during Mrs. Torres' very first rule on the 
House floor, we are making her amendment in order, which, again, Mr. 
Speaker, is one of those prerogatives of Rules Committee members.
  I know that in the first few moments of the FAA bill, Mr. Speaker, we 
are going to want to talk about the good work that went on in the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It has really been my 
pleasure as not just a Rules Committee member, but as a Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee member to be able to work on this bill now 
in two committees.
  You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that we went not only through our 
initial hearings in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; we 
went through a summer markup last year. We have gone through five 
short-term extensions on FAA, and we are now here prepared to consider 
a full 5-year reauthorization on the floor.
  It has not been the easiest process. There have been a lot of folks 
who haven't gotten everything they have wanted in this process, but it 
has been a collaborative process, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad that we 
have it here today.
  I would be remiss if I didn't thank our committee chairman on the 
authorizing committee, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Shuster, for all the work 
that he has done. As you know, he has been a long champion of reforming 
the FAA, believing that we could get even more value for the American 
taxpayer dollars out of the FAA. While he did not achieve everything 
that he wanted to achieve in this bill either, Mr. Speaker, we have a 
dramatic step forward in H.R. 4 today.
  These things never happen by accident, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, 
and I want to thank all the folks who have been toiling behind the 
scenes in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee day in and 
day out. I am thinking of folks, Mr. Speaker, like Chris Vieson. I am 
thinking about folks like Naveen Rao. I am thinking about Hunter Presti 
and Brittany Smith.
  Mr. Speaker, even though he has left us to go, now, serve in the 
article II Federal Railroad Administration, I want to thank Matt 
Sturges, who was the former staff director there at the committee, for 
all he has done over 2 years to get us to this place.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, getting this work done requires a 
collaborative working relationship, Members and staff across the aisle, 
from committee office staff to personal office staff, and it has really 
been a rewarding process. I am very proud of the product that we have 
on the floor today, but it wouldn't have been possible without all of 
the staff working and the collaboration that went on. I am grateful to 
folks for that. That is the authorizing committee side, Mr. Speaker.
  On the Rules Committee side, we had an equal amount of work going on. 
These past few days, moving this bill through the Rules Committee, the 
staff has had to work tirelessly, in large part, because of all the 
amendments that were offered to the bill. We now, in this rule, today, 
Mr. Speaker, made in order 116 different revisions to this bill.
  Let me say that again. We went through a complete, full, and open 
markup in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as you know, 
Mr. Speaker; but then, in the Rules Committee, we made in order an 
additional 116 amendments through this rule today: 56 of those are 
amendments sponsored by my Democratic colleagues; 36 of those are 
amendments sponsored by my Republican colleagues; and 24 of those are 
amendments that have bipartisan support here in this Chamber. That is 
just over 50 percent of all the ideas that were brought to the Rules 
Committee last night, Mr. Speaker.
  I hope that my colleagues are as proud of that as I am. It reflects 
the commitment that Speaker Ryan made to having a more open and 
transparent process. Here, again: 56 Democratic amendments, 36 
Republican amendments, and 24 bipartisan amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, this FAA bill is a good step towards bringing more value 
to the American taxpayer from the FAA, and this rule is a good step to 
making

[[Page H3515]]

that possible. With the passage of this rule today, we will be able to 
move directly to that debate.
  Mr. Speaker, don't believe the headlines that say Congress has packed 
up its bags and gone home. I hear that day in and day out that folks 
think this 2018 is not going to be a particularly productive 
legislative session. I reject that. I reject that with no reservations 
whatsoever.
  I see the passion my friends on the Democratic side have for 
continuing to make improvements for the American people. I see that 
same passion on our side. Now, I am not saying we are not going to have 
some challenges keeping people focused on the process at hand, but this 
FAA bill is a good example of the fact that we are still hard at work, 
and there is still much work that we can do together.

  This bill, Mr. Speaker, finally delivers on the regulatory reform to 
the FAA certification process.
  Now, if you have any companies in your district that are involved in 
FAA regulations in any way, shape, or form, you know exactly what I am 
talking about. This certification process is going to allow companies 
all over the country, including many in my district, Mr. Speaker, like 
Meggitt in Suwanee, like Universal Avionics in Duluth, like Siemens in 
Cumming, Gulfstream in Savannah, and many others, to get safer, more 
innovative aviation products to market faster.
  Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker: safer products, more innovative 
products, more value to the American taxpayer to market faster.
  This bill also provides a pathway to regulatory certainty for 
unmanned aircraft systems. That allows companies like L3 Technologies 
and Colonial Pipeline in Alpharetta, like UPS in Sandy Springs, like 
our electric utilities in Gwinnett and Forsyth Counties, Mr. Speaker, 
and many other companies in my home State of Georgia to get their 
technologies out faster, to make environments safer for their employees 
and for my constituents.

                              {time}  1245

  We all know that the transformative power of unmanned aviation is 
upon us. We have got to regulate that in a safe and responsible way to 
make sure that the rules are in place for certainty, for safety, and 
for opportunity for innovation. I believe we have that in this bill.
  We have a choice, Mr. Speaker. We are either going to lead the world 
in unmanned aviation or we are going to cede leadership to countries 
like China. I say we seize leadership, and we are seizing it here in 
this bill.
  The bill also commits that our airports--from the busiest airport in 
the world, Mr. Speaker, my hometown airport of Hartsfield-Jackson, the 
fourth busiest airport in the State; and also in my district, Mr. 
Speaker, is Briscoe Field in Lawrenceville--that these airports have 
access to long-term funding sustainability. We all know that yanking 
the pendulum back and forth on Federal funding does not serve any of 
our constituents' cause. Funding stability--knowing that they can count 
on the Federal Government to be their partner in providing innovation 
and improving the overall experience of those men and women who travel 
through these airports--is of vital importance.
  And finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill ensures that our American 
airlines--like my hometown airline of Delta--can compete and win 
against anyone on the planet in terms of the service, reliability, 
safety, and customer service that we have come to expect. Again, 
aviation is a partnership in this country, Mr. Speaker, between private 
sector actors and public actors. We need to do all that we can, from 
our end of Pennsylvania Avenue, to be the very best partners that we 
can.
  Of course, we can always do more, and I hope that we will continue to 
do more. I am expecting a very robust Transportation Committee cycle 
here over the next 9 months. But this bill today is a significant 
downpayment on our commitment to the American people to make our 
aviation infrastructure continue to be the very finest on the planet.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule that, again, will govern debate of both H.R. 4 
and H.R. 3144 is a fair rule. These are both commonsense measures that 
will benefit the American people. I hope my colleagues will see that, I 
hope my colleagues will come to the floor and support this rule, and I 
hope my colleagues will also support the two underlying measures.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  I am proud to be the newest member of the House Rules Committee. When 
I expressed my desire to join the committee to the minority leader, I 
shared my hope that I could do my part to ensure the committee would 
allow the House to work its will in an open way. Unfortunately, the 
rule that we are bringing to the floor does not meet that standard. For 
that reason, I rise in opposition.
  The rule we consider this afternoon is a combined rule for H.R. 3144, 
legislation to delay and derail management practices at the Federal 
Columbia River Power System in the Pacific Northwest, and H.R. 4, the 
Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act. There is no reason 
for the House to take up these items in a combined rule. We have plenty 
of time to give each bill a full, robust debate, and plenty of time to 
allow the House an opportunity to vote on some of the 138 amendments 
filed to these bills that were not made in order under this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the House appears to be in a rush to leave here every 
single week. Last week, we only had three voting days, and with this 
combined rule, who knows how long we will be here this week. Perhaps we 
could use some of this extra time to take up a number of issues which 
Americans have been asking for.
  Instead of making this yet another short week, how about we give 
Americans a vote on addressing gun violence by giving us a vote on 
background checks, bump stocks, assault weapons, gun trafficking 
reform; or ensuring that we don't find ourselves in a constitutional 
crisis by protecting the special counsel, and making sure that we 
address Russian interference in our elections; or allowing the House to 
actually take a vote on so many outstanding immigration issues by 
protecting DACA and TPS recipients?
  There are 244 cosponsors of Representative Denham's ``Queen of the 
Hill'' resolution, including over 40 members of the majority party.
  Nearly 8 months since President Trump terminated the DACA program, 
Congress has continually failed to protect the thousands of American 
Dreamers who lose their protections every single day. Dreamers are the 
educators, doctors, and small-business owners who make our communities 
better and help make our country stronger and safer.
  There are very real consequences for the lack of a permanent solution 
to this crisis. The American people want us to act. We can respect 
their will by taking up the ``Queen of the Hill'' resolution on one of 
the many days where we find ourselves with nothing to do. We could work 
together to at least provide the House with a path forward where the 
best idea wins.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of doing what we did last week by canceling 
voting days, let's take this time to act on behalf of our constituents. 
Why don't we put a stop to the administration's attack on the 
Affordable Care Act and work on bipartisan improvements to control the 
cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and increase access to 
services?
  Finally, why don't we take some time to do what I have been calling 
for since my first day in Congress and pass a large-scale 
infrastructure package? There are roads and bridges crumbling around 
our country, transit systems in need of significant repair, and a power 
grid waiting to enter the 21st century. We need robust investments in 
our transportation and energy infrastructure.
  In its 2017 report card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave 
us our infrastructure a nearl failing grade of a D-plus. But based on 
my experiences driving around my hometown, that might be a bit too 
generous.

  These are all the things that have bipartisan agreement. It is up to 
us to address the real problems before us with leadership, security, 
and stability that the Nation demands.
  That said, as I mentioned before, we have two bills included in this 
rule. The first is the FAA Authorization

[[Page H3516]]

Act, the first long-term FAA reauthorization since 2012. This 
legislation was developed over 3 years of bipartisan and stakeholder 
negotiations. It will provide long-term stability for our Nation's 
aviation community, continue investments in research and innovation, 
and make necessary reforms to improve American competitiveness and 
safety in aviation.
  I appreciate Chairman Shuster working with Ranking Member DeFazio to 
ensure that this bill is as bipartisan as possible. I would have 
preferred that we did more to assist our Nation's airports, but this 
bill reflects the committee's will.
  Airline safety is on all of our minds, especially after the tragedy 
of Southwest Flight 1380. Moving this bill forward, without the poison 
bill language we had seen in previous versions, will go a long way in 
improving passenger safety, passenger comfort, and the entire 
experience on our Nation's airlines.
  Following my work to return the Ontario International Airport to 
local control, we have seen my hometown airport go through a 
renaissance with new flights being added constantly. It is my hope that 
this bill continues that growth and allows for more improvements at the 
airport.
  While I am pleased this rule does make in order an amendment I 
offered to assist Ontario International Airport and airports like it, 
there are many amendments which were not made in order.
  One such amendment I want to mention is Representative Cartwright's 
amendment No. 152 on single-pilot operations. I am extremely concerned 
with section 744 of the underlying legislation, which establishes an 
FAA research and development program in support of single-pilot all-
cargo operations utilizing remote piloting or computer piloting 
technology.
  Unfortunately, I believe moving in this direction--single-piloted 
aircraft--will result in excessive workload for pilots and safety risks 
for everyone.
  I think it would have been fair for the House to give the Cartwright 
amendment a floor debate and a simple up-or-down vote.
  In addition, I am disappointed that Representative Grace Meng's 
amendment No. 28 was not made in order. This amendment would have 
standardized the treatment of animals aboard airlines.
  I know we were all horrified when we read the reports last month of a 
pet who died after being forced into a luggage compartment, or being 
flushed down a toilet, or being forced to leave the plane.
  According to a U.S. Department of Transportation report issued in 
February, 24 animals died in the care of U.S. carriers last year. I 
don't think it is too much to ask for a vote on the House floor to 
establish standards for the safety of our constituents' pets.
  In addition to the FAA authorization bill, this rule will also bring 
H.R. 3144 to the floor. This bill is intended to provide for operations 
of the Federal Columbia River Power System and delay multiple court 
decisions which are intended to protect the local environment.
  This legislation would derail the ongoing comprehensive efforts to 
improve dam management practices on the Columbia River basin, creating 
problematic conservation and management policies. The impact on salmon 
and steelhead trout, in particular, would harm not just the 
environment, but also tribes and businesses of the Pacific Northwest.
  I joined the Rules Committee from my previous role as ranking member 
on the Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee. I was 
proud of the work I did to protect Tribal communities, and while 
serving in that role, I opposed this legislation due to the negative 
impact on local tribes.
  The 2014 operation plan, which this bill attempts to re-implement, 
was developed by the Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries 
Services. That plan was found to violate the Endangered Species Act and 
the National Environmental Policy Act, and failed to live up to the 
agreement we made with local tribes.
  Native peoples of the Pacific Northwest ceded most of their ancestral 
homeland to the U.S. in exchange for the right to catch salmon and 
steelhead at their accustomed places. This tradition carries great 
cultural and religious significance, but the current operation plan 
would further harm Tribal fisheries.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation 
because it fails to include the appropriate input from local tribes. I 
urge my colleagues to reconsider bringing this bill forward, and go 
back to the drawing board where an agreement can be reached that brings 
all affected parties on board.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule we have before 
us, and I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I say with no levity that we are absolutely thrilled to 
have Mrs. Torres on the Rules Committee, as she has already made a 
contribution. She is going to continue to make a wonderful 
contribution.
  I would say, Mr. Speaker, to my friend from California, that 
sometimes setting expectations is the right way to find success in the 
things that we pursue in our lives.
  This FAA bill, I recognize her concerns that not every amendment was 
made in order. She is absolutely right. However, this bill did go 
through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where all of 
our transportation subject matter experts are supposed to be, and 
absolutely every amendment was considered in that transportation 
committee.
  Now it leaves the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where 
the subject matter experts are, and we have now made in order over 100 
additional amendments brought from all across this House, more 
Democratic amendments made in order than Republican amendments made in 
order, but over 100 additional amendments made in order to try to 
perfect this bill.
  It may not be everything that folks would like to see, but I would 
share with the gentlewoman, Mr. Speaker, that from my brief Rules 
Committee experience, we are getting close to a high-water mark here, 
and I am going to try to take credit and share enthusiasm when we have 
an opportunity to do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. 
Gianforte), for his insights on this legislation.
  Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3144, 
which will bring certainty to the management of the Federal Columbia 
River Power System.
  For generations, the system has provided thousands of Montanans with 
clean, low-cost energy. Compliance with environmental mandates and 
litigation, however, threaten our way of life.
  The Bonneville Power Administration spent over $700 million to comply 
with environmental red tape in 1 year alone. Thirty percent of those 
costs were passed on to taxpayers. A recent court-ordered spill 
released nearly $40 million of potential hydropower. Approximately 
130,000 Montana taxpayers will pay a portion of the costs for this 
court-mandated spill. This increase is on top of rate hikes of up to 50 
percent that western Montana electric co-ops have faced since 2011.
  It is time to bring certainty to the operations of the Columbia River 
System.
  Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of this bipartisan bill, I urge my 
colleagues to bring some relief to Montana taxpayers and pass H.R. 
3144.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and 
Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Recently, our attention was rightly focused on one passenger who was 
killed after jet engine failure.
  Two years ago, July 30, 2016, 16 people were killed near Lockhart, 
Texas, in the deadliest commercial balloon crash in our Nation's 
history and the worst aviation disaster of any type in the last decade.
  After that crash, this photo shows all that was left. Rightly, the 
head of the National Transportation Safety Board expressed his 
disappointment that the Federal Aviation Administration appears to be 
shirking its responsibility for the many people who go out to enjoy a 
commercial balloon flight.

[[Page H3517]]

  Since 2016, I have repeatedly urged the FAA to adopt a safety 
measure, long recommended by the NTSB, to help avert tragedies like 
this.
  The NTSB found that the FAA's refusal to require commercial balloon 
operators to obtain a medical certificate that they are suitable for 
flying contributed to this crash where so many were harmed.
  My bipartisan amendment, that has been approved by the Rules 
Committee, would end this exemption for commercial balloon operations 
to ensure that there is not another family in America that is at risk 
of injury or death from an impaired pilot.
  Continued inaction is inexcusable and risks condemning more to death.
  Uniting in Caldwell County around the courthouse in morning prayer to 
remember the victims, a bell rang 16 times for each person who was 
lost; families, coming together in their hurt, lovingly embraced by 
that community.
  You cannot un-ring a bell, and we cannot bring the precious lives 
back that were lost in this crash. But from their loss, we can pass an 
amendment that will help ensure that no other family needlessly 
suffers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the amendment in the course of the 
debate.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee and a 
subject matter expert on the Columbia River bill before us.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Woodall, my 
good friend from the Rules Committee, for yielding me such time.
  Mr. Speaker, I also welcome Mrs. Torres to her first management of a 
rule on the floor. It is a pleasure to have her as part of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, including the underlying 
legislation, H.R. 3144, of which I am a proud original cosponsor.
  H.R. 3144, Mr. Speaker, is a vital piece of legislation for my 
constituents as well as for the greater Pacific Northwest region.
  The legislation keeps in place a groundbreaking, comprehensive plan 
which governs the operations and salmon protection management plan for 
the Federal Columbia River Power System.
  This plan was the product of painstaking negotiations conducted by 
the Bush and the Obama administrations, scientists, engineering experts 
at Federal agencies, affected States, sovereign Northwest Tribes, and 
local stakeholders. In fact, every Tribe in the region was consulted in 
the development of the 2014 biological opinion, and all but one 
supported it.
  H.R. 3144 ensures that Tribal consultations provided for under the 
BiOp continue unaffected.
  These experts collaborated to develop this comprehensive plan to both 
protect Endangered Species Act-listed salmon and to provide certainty 
for our region's ability to continue providing clean, renewable, and 
affordable power derived from hydroelectric dams.
  Now, unfortunately, a Federal judge in Portland, Oregon, has decided 
to throw out this comprehensive plan and negate years of serious 
concerted efforts by a diverse set of Federal, State, and local 
stakeholders. He has anointed himself the sole expert of this river 
system and has begun dictating scientific and engineering decisions.
  As my friend Jack Heffling says: ``One judge in Portland does not 
know how to manage this river system better than the experts and 
professional workforce who keep the lights on for the entire Pacific 
Northwest.''
  Jack is president of the United Power Trades Organization, a labor 
union representing more than 600 men and women who maintain and operate 
the equipment at hydroelectric projects throughout the Pacific 
Northwest.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand with Jack today and all of the men and women of 
the power trades. I believe the experts, scientists and biologists, 
engineers, and professional workers at Federal agencies and on the 
ground working at our dams should be deciding how to best manage this 
system, not a judge sitting behind a bench.
  Unfortunately, this judge thinks otherwise and now has mandated an 
ongoing forced spill order over eight of our dams in the region. This 
order could have devastating impacts on transportation and barging 
systems, on our flood control capabilities, and irrigation systems; it 
could impair our agricultural economy, both by limiting modes of 
transportation for our commodities and by hobbling our irrigation 
resources.
  While there are no cost estimates of the effects this decision will 
have on transportation and barging, flood control, or irrigation, 
Federal agencies have estimated that the forced spill will cost 
ratepayers, utility ratepayers, $40 million per year in increased 
electrical rates starting in the very near future.
  The judge's order could also harm the very fish he is claiming to 
protect. The Bonneville Power Administration, or the BPA, notes that 
the risks of exposing fish to the maximum total dissolved gas levels 
have not been evaluated, nor has it been recommended by the National 
Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
  They warn that the potential for adverse effects from exposure to 
these gases in the river is a concern recognized by experts in the 
region and also creates risk of adverse consequences for other aquatic 
species.
  The judge's decision to recklessly dictate a water management plan 
could, in fact, harm or even kill these ESA-listed salmon.
  This order also threatens the reliability of the Federal power and 
transmission system. BPA has also warned of blackouts, stating:

       When the Lower Columbia and Lower Snake generators are 
     operating at minimum generation levels, however . . . there 
     is far less generation available for use. . . . Under the 
     right conditions, local blackouts may occur if there is 
     inadequate transfer capability in the transmission system to 
     move the necessary electric power to loads.

  I am already hearing from our local cooperatives and public utility 
districts that this threat is not far off. Our communities could be 
facing the risk of rolling blackouts in the coming months due to this 
order.
  Mr. Speaker, it is because of this reckless antiscience order that 
constituents and stakeholders from a great variety of backgrounds and 
viewpoints have joined with me and my colleagues from the Pacific 
Northwest over these past several months to stand against this decision 
and support a rational, science-based resolution.
  I have been overwhelmed and invigorated by these supporters, whether 
it is the barge captains on our rivers, who move commodities like wheat 
for export; or small-business owners, who depend on our affordable 
electricity throughout the Pacific Northwest; it is the union workers 
at our hydropower dams and the irrigators, who provide the incredibly 
vital resource of water for our region; it is the local cooperative 
managers and public utility district leaders across Washington State 
and throughout the Northwest who have rallied to bring this legislation 
to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today, and I could 
not be more proud to stand with all of them in support of H.R. 3144.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, not every aspect of this matter has been 
as inspiring. I have been disappointed to see radical and ideological 
groups use hyperbolic language to insinuate that my colleagues and I 
are actively advocating for the extinction of our native salmon 
species.

  Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the 
truth, and, frankly, I have been appalled that some of my colleagues in 
this very body have decided to use these same scare tactics to 
fearmonger other Members of this House.
  They claim we advocate for an illegal or an unlawful plan that does 
not do enough to help fish, yet they fail to mention that it was 
President Obama's administration who formally approved of this plan 
after years of work with scientists, with experts, with affected 
States, and, like I said, with sovereign Northwest Indian Tribes.
  Mr. Speaker, I take offense to these fringe voices and proudly stand 
with the reasoned, serious contributors who have been a part of these 
collaborative and unprecedented negotiations.
  I challenge these detractors, let this plan actually come to 
fruition, let us actually have a plan that has the intent of continuing 
our salmon restoration efforts, rather than constantly bogging down our 
Federal action agencies and experts running the system in decades of 
litigation after litigation.

[[Page H3518]]

  Honor the work of these diverse stakeholders who, in a good faith 
effort, worked to build a plan to both save our salmon and save our 
dams.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, support the rule and support H.R. 
3144. Join me to save our salmon and save our dams.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, President Trump campaigned on the promise of draining 
the swamp, but has instead allowed corruption to run rampant in the 
executive office. Several Cabinet officials are being investigated for 
ethics violations and the misuse of Federal funds.
  Housing and Urban Development Secretary Carson spent over $31,000 on 
a new dining room set for his office. Interior Secretary Zinke spent 
$139,000 of taxpayer money to remodel three sets of office doors.
  One of the most outrageous practices by President Trump's Cabinet is 
the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on luxury air travel. Just a 
couple of examples: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator 
Pruitt spent over $14,000 on a private jet traveling just 300 miles 
within Oklahoma.

                              {time}  1315

  Interior Secretary Zinke cost the taxpayers $12,000 chartering a 
plane belonging to an oil and gas exploration firm.
  President Trump recently said: ``Sometimes it may not look like it, 
but believe me, we are draining the swamp.''
  Well, with a Cabinet like this, I have to agree with President Trump 
in part. It does not look like he is draining the swamp, but that is 
because he is not.
  For this reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lieu's H.R. 3876, the 
SWAMP FLYERS Act. This legislation will ensure that senior political 
appointees are not using Federal funds for official travel on private 
aircraft.
  Unlike the restrictive rules we are considering today, this bill 
would be brought to the floor under an open rule so that all Members 
have the opportunity to amend the bill on the floor.
  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 (Mr. Fleischmann). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ted Lieu) to discuss this proposal.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, whether you are a Republican 
or a Democrat or an Independent, you don't want corruption in your 
government. Unfortunately, multiple members of Donald Trump's Cabinet 
have engaged in massive fraud, waste, and abuse, largely by using 
taxpayer funds on luxury private air travel.
  Democrats have been calling repeatedly for investigations into 
Trump's ``Cabinet of Corruption.'' Unfortunately, the Republican-
controlled House has largely protected these officials at every turn. 
So I am going to highlight to you some of the more egregious examples, 
and we have added up the numbers.
  Representative Torres gave very specific examples, but we are going 
to give you the big numbers so you understand how much corruption there 
is.
  It all started with former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom 
Price, who spent half a million dollars of taxpayer funds on private 
and military jet travel for no good reason. He could have taken 
commercial. He chose not to.
  Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin looked at that and must have said 
``what a great idea,'' because he doubled that spending. He spent 
nearly $1 million of taxpayer funds on at least seven military jets, 
for no good reason, because he could have flown commercial, just like 
his predecessors.
  And then we have Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who took multiple 
trips that added up to thousands of dollars on expensive private jets, 
as well as about $139,000 to renovate his office doors.
  Then we have former Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin, who 
spent $122,000 of taxpayer funds on a trip to Europe with his wife, 
largely to do sightseeing.
  But EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, he takes this to a whole new 
level. He is so creative in his corruption. You will be very impressed 
to hear how ingenious he is.
  First of all, he spent over $40,000 on a private phone booth of your 
hard-earned taxpayer funds. For most Americans, we know there is a very 
simple way to make private phone calls from your office; it is called 
closing the office door. But no, he didn't do that. He spent your hard-
earned money to have this private phone booth for him to make his phone 
calls.
  Then he managed to find a way to live here in Washington, D.C., 
cheaply, by getting a below-market rate condo deal, $50 a night; and 
then he structured the lease so that the landlord had to keep the condo 
open for the entire time for 6 months, but he only had to pay for the 
days that he stayed there. No ordinary citizens could have gotten that 
lease.
  Then he spent over $200,000 of your hard-earned taxpayers' money, on, 
again, first class travel and chartered flights.
  The Trump administration's ``Cabinet of Corruption'' is sticking 
Americans with a raw deal. Democrats believe that hardworking Americans 
deserve a better deal, and my bill, the SWAMP FLYERS Act is very 
simple. It will prevent administration officials from using taxpayer 
funds for private air travel, ensuring that government officials are 
not using your hard-earned taxpayer dollars to fund their lavish 
lifestyles.
  If my colleagues care about protecting our tax dollars and preventing 
these obvious abuses, they will vote ``no'' on the previous question 
and call up H.R. 3876, the SWAMP FLYERS Act, for a vote.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, with great optimism that we will return to 
the bill at hand, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Ms. Titus), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, 
Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, after testifying before the Rules Committee 
last night on my amendment to this bill, H.R. 4, a worthy amendment 
that, by the way, was not made in order and will not be debated or 
voted on by this body, I felt compelled to speak about the broken 
process that dominates this Congress.
  The Speaker promised us an open and inclusive process but, in 
reality, it has never been more closed. Members play very little role 
in legislating today. Instead, the agenda is dictated and the process 
is controlled by a failed leadership cabal.
  Let me remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
majorities can switch and, when they do, previous mistreatment, 
unfairness, and disregard for the democratic process will be hard to 
forget.
  In the meantime, we can reverse this destructive trend and better 
serve the American people by rejecting the rule before us, so I urge a 
``no'' vote on the rule.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from California I 
do not have any speakers remaining, and so I am prepared to close when 
she is. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous 
question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I had a wonderful closing statement but, against that 
backdrop of collegiality, I will say only this. I did mention earlier 
that subject matter experts were assigned to the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee. My friend, Ms. Titus, is on that committee; I 
am on that committee.
  As a subject matter expert, my mom and dad come to me regularly to 
help them with their airline reservations, Delta Airlines, of course, 
being an Atlantan. But just recently, they were heading out to 
California; demanded that I make those reservations going into Ontario 
instead of LAX because, why in the world would anyone want to

[[Page H3519]]

battle LAX when they could be in the Torres district there in Ontario?
  They were treated wonderfully and had a wonderful visit, so I 
recognize the gentlewoman's passion for her airport.
  Mr. Speaker, if you have an airport in your district, if you have 
aviation travelers in your district, you want the FAA to be 
reauthorized. This bill, this rule makes that possible. This bill gets 
that job done in an open, collaborative, and bipartisan way. I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule, support the underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Torres is as follows:

           An Amendment to H. Res. 839 Offered by Ms. Torres

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 5. 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. 
     3876) to prohibit the use of Federal funds for the official 
     travel of any senior political appointee on private aircraft, 
     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 Oversight and Government Reform. 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. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3876.
                                  ____


        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. WOODALL. 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.
  Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of the adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 190, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 150]

                               YEAS--225

     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
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     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
     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
     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

                               NAYS--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     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
     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)

[[Page H3520]]


     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Lamb
     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
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Black
     Capuano
     Crawford
     Gowdy
     Grothman
     Jenkins (WV)
     Kuster (NH)
     Labrador
     Lewis (GA)
     Noem
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Scalise
     Walz

                              {time}  1353

  Mr. LAMB and Ms. BASS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania changed his 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

  Mrs. TORRES. 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 184, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 151]

                               AYES--228

     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
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Jenkins (KS)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     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
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     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
     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
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Black
     Capuano
     Crawford
     Gowdy
     Grothman
     Issa
     Jenkins (WV)
     Kuster (NH)
     Labrador
     Lewis (GA)
     Noem
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Scalise
     Sewell (AL)
     Speier
     Walz

                              {time}  1400

  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.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 150 and ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 151.

                          ____________________