Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 67 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)

[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

[[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.

____________________