[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 93 (Wednesday, June 6, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4785-H4792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3249, PROJECT 
 SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2017; PROVIDING 
 FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2018; 
    AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5895, ENERGY AND WATER 
       DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 918

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     3249) to authorize the Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant 
     Program, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment 
     thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention 
     of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary or his designee that the House 
     concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the 
     motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to adoption without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2.  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. 8) 
     to provide for improvements to the rivers and harbors of the 
     United States, to provide for the conservation and 
     development of water and related resources, 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. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill, an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 115-72 shall be considered as adopted in the 
     House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
     purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No further 
     amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except 
     those printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. 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 one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 3.  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. 
     5895) making appropriations for energy and water development 
     and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2019, 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 Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. An amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-71 shall 
     be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the 
     original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 
     five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. Points of 
     order against provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure 
     to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as 
     follows: page 66, line 14, through page 66, line 20. No 
     further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules and pro forma amendments described in section 4 of 
     this resolution. Each further amendment printed in part B of 
     the report 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, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before action thereon, shall not 
     be subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 of 
     this resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
     division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
     the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment pursuant to this resolution, the 
     Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further 
     consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant 
     to a subsequent order of the House.
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of H.R. 5895 for amendment, 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate.
       Sec. 5.  (a) During consideration of H.R. 5895, it shall 
     not be in order to consider an amendment proposing both a 
     decrease in an appropriation designated pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and an increase in an appropriation not 
     so designated, or vice versa. (b) This paragraph shall not 
     apply to an amendment between the Houses.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania). 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 ranking member of the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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, I am excited to be down here with my friend 
from Massachusetts today, Mr. Speaker. You heard the Reading Clerk work 
her way through this rule. It is a big one today, and it is a big one 
because we have got a lot to talk about today. I am going to try not to 
go over. I appreciate the Speaker starting proceedings a little early 
today so that we have time to get through all of the material that we 
have to work through.
  In this rule today, House Resolution 918, we are providing for three 
separate appropriations bills to be considered as a single package in 
addition to two other bills that are very important.
  First of all, the rule today, Mr. Speaker, provides for concurrence 
in the Senate amendment to the House-passed bill, H.R. 3249. It is the 
Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Program Authorization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Virginia (Mrs. Comstock) has been 
working so aggressively on this bill. You will remember the House 
passed this bill by a voice vote back in March of this year. It went 
over to the Senate. The Senate amended it. They, too,

[[Page H4786]]

passed it by unanimous consent. House Resolution 918 today provides for 
the consideration to approve those Senate amendments, send this bill 
directly to the President's desk, and let it begin to make a difference 
in these communities right away.
  The bill supports Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts, 
Mr. Speaker, to combat gang-related violence throughout our communities 
and to get involved in other prevention techniques.
  We have all seen street gang activities increasing in our 
communities. If you are from a community that has not yet seen that 
impact, consider yourself fortunate. According to the House Judiciary 
Committee, Mr. Speaker, we have these crimes on the increase. We have 
all been hearing about transnational gangs, such as MS-13, as they are 
becoming increasingly organized and increasingly more violent.
  Giving our Nation's law enforcement authorities the ability to keep 
Americans safe and to have the tools they need to fight these gangs is 
a priority of all of us in this institution, and approval of this rule 
today will allow us to bring that bill to the floor and send it to the 
President's desk for his signature.
  House Resolution 918 also provides for a structured rule, Mr. 
Speaker, for consideration of the first of our fiscal year 2019 
appropriations bills. As I mentioned, there are three bills in this 
package. H.R. 5895 combines the Energy and Water Development bill with 
the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill and with the Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. It puts them all under one 
umbrella, maintaining our commitment to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 
2018 spending caps.
  The House Appropriations Committee, Mr. Speaker, has already passed 6 
of the 12 annual appropriations bills. I will say that again. Six of 
the 12 annual appropriations bills have already moved through the House 
Appropriations Committee.
  I look forward to the remainder of those bills being on this floor 
very soon. In fact, the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and 
Related Agencies is marking up their bill today, and the Defense 
Subcommittee is marking up their bill tomorrow.
  So before the end of the week, I would expect we will have 7 of 12 
appropriations bills ready for the floor, and we will be well on our 
way to having an eighth ready for the floor soon. This is only the 
first week of June, Mr. Speaker, and this is already the progress that 
the House Appropriations Committee has achieved. I am very proud of 
their success, and I want to talk a little bit about the bills they 
have before us today.
  You will remember, Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
bill was approved unanimously by the Appropriations Committee. 
Republicans and Democrats came together to support that bill. You will 
recall that we decided early on, Mr. Speaker, that thrift would begin 
here in this House.
  With this Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, not only are we 
funding the shared priorities across the Capitol, we are also at a 
funding level still below the level at which this House was funded the 
year I was first elected to Congress, Mr. Speaker. Thrift does begin at 
home. We have avoided being penny-wise and pound-foolish. We funded 
important priorities and were again able to pass this out of committee 
on a unanimous, bipartisan vote.
  The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill also came out of 
committee on a unanimous, bipartisan vote, 47-0 in both cases, Mr. 
Speaker. And, clearly, this type of collaboration, this type of 
bipartisan activity is something we would like to see more often in 
this Chamber, but we have it in these two bills today.
  The third appropriations bill that is bundled together here, Mr. 
Speaker, is the Energy and Water bill, a bill that is tremendously 
important to my part of the world there on the Georgia coast, involving 
Georgia's water infrastructure. It passed the Appropriations Committee 
on a slightly less powerful vote. It was 29-20, still a bipartisan 
vote, but not as big a majority--in fact, not unanimous, as the others 
were. But it is critically important to so many of our States, Mr. 
Speaker, and I am confident we will be able to move it across the 
floor.

  I will just give a couple of examples. I know everybody has their own 
story to tell about the importance in their State.
  In my State, it provides $49 million as a Federal partnership to the 
more than $300 million that the State of Georgia has already put into 
deepening the Port of Savannah. The Savannah Harbor Expansion Project 
is one of the largest economic development projects in the Southeastern 
United States. It has a Corps of Engineers report authorizing this 
construction. Georgia put all of its money in up front, and now the 
Feds are coming through with $49 million of their own.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill includes millions of dollars for operations and 
maintenance of the Corps of Engineers. If you live in the Southeastern 
United States, as I do, odds are, the Corps controls your water supply. 
More than 80 percent of the people who live in the multimillion-person 
metropolitan Atlanta area, Mr. Speaker, depend on Corps of Engineers 
facilities for their drinking water. Eighty percent depend on Corps of 
Engineers for their drinking water. It is tremendously important to 
families across the district.
  I am heartened that the Appropriations Committee, even though they 
could not be unanimous, persisted in moving this bill through committee 
in a bipartisan way, and I am optimistic of what it is going to do for 
water and energy infrastructure for years to come.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, to a committee that is almost as near and dear 
to my heart as the Rules Committee is, this bills brings to the floor a 
bill from the Transportation Committee, H.R. 8, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2018.
  Folks often think of the Veterans Affairs' Committee as being one of 
the most bipartisan committees on Capitol Hill, and, candidly, I think 
it makes us all proud to know that is true; but the House 
Transportation Committee sits a very close second.
  Infrastructure projects, whether it be safe drinking water, whether 
it be roads and bridges, whether it be airport facilities, these are 
issues that we all confront, and these are issues that bring us 
together in an also unanimous fashion, Mr. Speaker. The House 
Transportation Committee reported the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2018, and we have that before us today.
  If you haven't gotten to see a good committee chairman and ranking 
member working in partnership, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend Chairman 
Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania and Ranking Member Pete DeFazio of Oregon 
to you any time. To suggest that these two men agree on everything 
would be folly, but to suggest that they find a way to work through 
everything would not be too much said. They never take no for an 
answer. They always work hard together. In the case of the Water 
Resources Development Act, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't just exist at the 
committee chairman level; it exists at the subcommittee level.
  On the Republican side of the aisle, we have Chairman Garret Graves 
from Louisiana; and on the Democratic side of the aisle, we have 
Ranking Member Grace Napolitano from California--again, two Members who 
work incredibly closely together. They produce a superior work product 
that you are going to be able to see in the line items in this 
legislation.
  We are talking about America's ports. We are talking about inland 
waterways. We are talking about locks and dams. We are talking about 
flood protection. We are talking about water infrastructure and 
ecosystem protection. Line item after line item, we were able to come 
together in a bipartisan way.
  I would argue this is going to be one of the most important bills 
that the Congress passes in 2018, Mr. Speaker. And, again, it took a 
lot of hard, bipartisan work to get here.
  Our Nation's ports, Mr. Speaker, process about $4 billion in product 
a day, imports and exports. About 11 percent of everything we buy in 
the State of Georgia has come through one of our ports. Nearly 440,000 
jobs, Mr. Speaker, in my State alone are dependent on ports and 
waterways, and there is $25 billion worth of State income from that.
  And that is just a State like Georgia, Mr. Speaker. If you go to 
Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, California,

[[Page H4787]]

or Washington State, you are going to hear those same stories told time 
and time again.
  Now, I would like to believe, because we passed this bill out of the 
Transportation Committee where transportation experts sit, that we 
produced a perfect work product out of the Transportation Committee. 
But wearing my Rules Committee hat, I recognize that other Members of 
this Chamber may have some good ideas of their own that they would like 
to make in order for the debate on the Water Resources Development Act.
  To that end, the rule today, Mr. Speaker, passed by this body will 
make 52 additional amendments in order to be considered for this bill. 
That is 19 Republican amendments, 20 Democratic amendments, and 13 
bipartisan amendments.

  I will say that again, Mr. Speaker. Fifty-two amendments were made in 
order by this rule for the Water Resources Development Act: 19 
Republican amendments, 20 Democratic amendments, and 13 bipartisan 
amendments.
  All amendments are intended to make this bill better. This body will 
decide, if this rule is approved, whether, in fact, they do.
  We had four subcommittee meetings on WRDA this year, this cycle, Mr. 
Speaker--two roundtable discussions in Florida and Oregon, and two 
hearings here in Washington, D.C.--all seeking to involve stakeholders.
  You may not recall, Mr. Speaker, but there was a while that this 
Congress was unable to pass WRDA bills. We went through 7 years of this 
Congress failing to pass any WRDA bills at all. I was not in Congress 
at the time that began, but I am in Congress at the time that that 
comes to an end.
  Beginning with Bill Shuster's leadership there on the Transportation 
Committee, we have gotten back in the habit of moving a water resources 
bill every single Congress. This will be the third in that cycle, and 
it matters: It matters for certainty to stakeholders back home; it 
matters for certainty to constituents back home; and it matters that we 
don't have to do it all in one giant omnibus bill every single time. We 
are able to break it down into smaller chunks because we are taking 
care of it as challenges arise, again, in a bipartisan fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to sit on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee where the kind of collaboration and mutual 
respect that you have heard me talk about exists every single day.
  I want to thank, again, Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio 
for making that environment one that can exist.
  I think we brought a very fair rule to the floor today to try to 
bring not just the Water Resources Development Act to the floor, the 
Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Program Authorization to the floor, 
but also the first three appropriations bills in our annual cycle to 
the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues can support the rule, I hope 
they will support the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is a study in contradictions from my 
Republican colleagues. They have brought up H.R. 8, the Water Resources 
Development Act. This is an incredibly important bill to improve our 
Nation's ports, locks, dams, and more all across the country. It is a 
bipartisan bill, and it was the product of a process that shows how 
Congress is supposed to work.
  Hearings were held, and thoughtful testimony was given, including 
from the head of the Army Corps of Engineers. There was a markup. Input 
and ideas were heard from Members on both sides. Remarkably, a majority 
of amendments offered were adopted en bloc by a voice vote without much 
controversy.
  That is important to note, Mr. Speaker, because Republicans these 
days aren't known for their lack of controversy. Just this week the 
President of the United States is talking about pardoning himself of 
possible Federal crimes. His lawyer is floating wild theories about how 
the President could shoot his former FBI Director without facing 
prosecution while in office.
  So this bipartisan bill and the mostly collaborative process that got 
us here came as welcome relief--until this bill got to the Rules 
Committee. That is when Republican leaders ran into a back room 
somewhere and took out a bipartisan amendment from the ranking member 
of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Congressman 
DeFazio. The amendment would reform the harbor maintenance trust fund 
to make sure money gets where it needs to go: to actually maintaining 
our harbors.
  They did this without any debate and despite the fact that both the 
chairman and ranking member of the committee supported it. The 
gentleman from Georgia says he is on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, and he voted against his chairman and ranking 
member. So much for bipartisanship. The majority threw sand in the 
gears of what was a good process. They just can't help themselves, and 
this is par for the course here.
  Just look at the other water development bill, the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Act. This could have been another bipartisan measure. It 
funds most programs at an adequate level. But the majority reverted 
back to their usual ways: ignoring Democratic ideas and filling this up 
with one bipartisan proposal after another. It is like a Christmas tree 
loaded up with bad ideas.
  More than $400 million was cut from 2018 enacted levels for some of 
our biggest priorities, things like energy efficiency and renewable 
energy programs. Even nuclear nonproliferation programs were cut; and 
for what, Mr. Speaker? So the majority can reward their allies by 
skewing resources toward the fossil fuel industry.
  There are controversial riders that are completely unnecessary and 
would do more harm than good. They have no business being in an 
appropriations bill.
  One of the riders would hinder the Army Corps' ability to protect 
clean water. Another would kill the Waters of the United States rule. 
There is one rider that would threaten the Endangered Species Act. 
There is even language tucked inside this bill that would allow 
firearms to be carried on all Army Corps lands; and this from a 
majority that refuses to even consider ways to combat gun violence on 
the House floor. We can't even get a vote on anything related to gun 
violence on this floor. This is outrageous.
  The majority is also using this appropriations process to fund 
President Trump's stupid, ridiculous, offensive border wall. Mr. 
Speaker, didn't the President tell us that Mexico was going to foot the 
bill for this ridiculous wall? It is being funded by shortchanging 
priorities for the middle class. That includes programs to educate our 
children, help students afford college, and provide job training to our 
workers, all for this stupid wall--more red meat for the most narrow 
parts of the Republican base.
  I remember my Republican colleague talking for years about the 
importance of passing a budget resolution. Maybe that was just 
something they cared about under the Obama administration or something 
they do only when they are trying to take healthcare away from people 
or reward the wealthy with more tax cuts, because here they are under a 
Republican President with a Republican Congress pushing ahead with an 
appropriations package without passing a budget. That April 15 deadline 
came and went a long time ago.
  Mr. Speaker, what happened to doing one bill at a time? We used to 
consider appropriations bills separately, but the majority's rule lumps 
several together to try to speed up the process and I guess limit 
debate; and for what? Funding the government is one of our most 
important responsibilities. Two of these bills would probably pass with 
broad, bipartisan support, but, apparently, bipartisanship is not a 
priority for some of the Republican Conference. So they had to cram 
them together with a partisan bill that is filled with harmful 
ideological riders.

[[Page H4788]]

  I would like to think that the majority would want strong, bipartisan 
votes on appropriations bills. We used to have them in the past. We 
don't have any bipartisanship now as a direct result of the choices 
made by this Republican leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, why is the majority using a process that makes it harder 
to pass bipartisan bills? It may please their base, but it is an awful 
way to legislate. This majority has had 8 years to decide how to run 
this place. Mr. Speaker, clearly, they haven't figured it out. There is 
no budget and not even an attempt to get one. Where are all the 
Republican budget hawks? Where is their countdown clock with ``days 
since the last budget''? This majority can't even keep the lights 
on. We have seen two government shutdowns this year alone, and it is 
only June. My colleague from Georgia again said: Look at all we have 
done, and it is June.

  The other thing they did is they broke their own record of now being 
the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of 
America. They have brought more bills to the floor under a restrictive, 
closed process than any other Congress in history. Yes, they have 
accomplished a lot, it is only June, and it is going to get worse.
  There is virtually no oversight of the executive branch from this 
majority. None. Just one example, and this is a beauty: we have an EPA 
administrator who allegedly got a sweetheart deal on an apartment and 
spent $43 on a phone booth. You can't make this stuff up. He asked a 
Federal employee who reported to him to hunt for a used mattress from 
President Trump's hotel.
  None of this seems to bother my Republican colleagues. How is that 
possible?
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for the adults in Congress to stand up, bring 
sanity back to our government, bring professionalism back to our 
government, and bring some integrity back to this institution. Make 
your constituents proud. Make your government great again. You can 
start here today by voting ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I didn't come to the floor today to tell anybody that 
the process was perfect, and I didn't come to the floor today to tell 
anybody that the pieces of legislation before us are perfect. I am 
certain that they are not perfect, Mr. Speaker, because I didn't write 
every line of every one of them. That is my indication that they didn't 
turn out exactly right.
  What I did do, however, because I serve on the committees of 
jurisdiction, is I worked with my Democratic colleagues to get to a 
bill that we can all be proud of.
  Understand what we are talking about here today, Mr. Speaker. We can 
go back and have a series of recriminations and talk about all the 
injustices that have happened to each and every one of us over the 
years or we can celebrate the fact that in a really difficult budget 
environment we found a way to get the appropriations bills out--two out 
of three of these bills today unanimously--to the floor. The third one 
that didn't come out unanimously still came out with a bipartisan vote, 
Mr. Speaker. We should be celebrating that, not pretending that we are 
not making an honest effort with one another to get things done.
  The Water Resources Development Act, Mr. Speaker, the largest water 
infrastructure bill that this Congress will produce, and we produced it 
on a committee that has members from the far left to the far right and 
produced it unanimously, Mr. Speaker, because we did not take no for an 
answer and continued to work shoulder to shoulder until we found a 
place that each and every member could live with.
  No, these bills are not perfect today, which is why, in the case of 
WRDA, for example--again, the best work product the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee could produce--we allowed more than 50 
additional amendments--more Democratic amendments than Republican 
amendments, bipartisan amendments as well--to try to improve that 
language.
  How does this WRDA bill come to the floor? It comes after a long 
period of time where this Congress was controlled by both parties where 
no WRDA bill was produced at all. I will say it again, Mr. Speaker: it 
comes after a time when this Congress, controlled by both parties, 
produced no Water Resources bill at all. No bill for ports, no bill for 
inland waterways, no bill for water infrastructure, and no bill for 
locks and dams. No bill, Mr. Speaker, at all.
  Fast forward to today, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about the third 
consecutive Congress where we have come together and gotten it done--
not gotten it done for one party or another, not gotten it done for one 
Member or another--but gotten it done on behalf of all of our 
constituents who sent us all here, not to find excuses, not to find 
things to complain about, but to find a way to make it happen.
  Support this rule today, Mr. Speaker. I urge all my colleagues to 
support this rule today, Mr. Speaker, because if they do, we will bring 
that bipartisan work product to the floor. We will bring that 
unanimously approved gang violence prevention bill to the floor. And we 
will bring those three appropriations bills all passing in a bipartisan 
way out of committee to this floor. It is a day we can be proud of, Mr. 
Speaker, and I am proud to be here with you to talk about it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman came here to celebrate. I came 
here to remind everybody, again, that this is the most closed Congress 
in the history of the United States of America. I think that is an 
important fact for people to consider and digest, because process is 
important. Process equals substance. I am sorry, but that is not 
something to celebrate.

  We have no problem with the WRDA bill. We will support that, no 
problem. The gang violence bill, I think most of us will support that. 
Where we have a problem is what the majority did with the 
appropriations bills. The majority took two appropriations bills where 
there could be virtual unanimity--certainly bipartisan support--and 
says: If you want those bills, you have got to swallow a poison pill. 
You have to also vote as part of that package an Energy and Water bill 
that is filled with antienvironmental riders.
  I get it. I know where the allegiance of the majority party is when 
it comes to the environment. It is in the pockets of the oil companies, 
the fossil fuel industry, and now the coal companies. I get it.
  But for those who are offended by the antienvironmental record of the 
Republicans who run this House and certainly by the antienvironmental 
record of this administration, we don't want any part of that. That is 
not a bipartisan process. That is not a good process.
  By the way, these antienvironmental riders have no business being on 
an appropriations bill. It is stuff that just was added because the 
majority could. So we can't celebrate that process.
  Yes, we will vote for the WRDA bill, applaud Chairman Shuster and 
applaud Ranking Member DeFazio and all the members of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We have no problem with 
that.
  But this rule is designed for a purpose, and that is to limit debate 
and that is to try to put pressure on people to vote for a package that 
includes some really horrendous riders on it that do great harm to our 
environment. That is not the way this place is supposed to work.
  Unfortunately, the majority controls the process. This is a process 
the majority chooses to embrace. It is not fair, and, again, it is now 
the most closed process in the history of the United States of America.
  Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure in our Nation is in dire need of 
repair and maintenance. Reports are that Chairman Shuster is hoping to 
release an infrastructure bill later this summer. This is good news, 
but given the Republican majority's recent history, the American 
taxpayers first need to know where our priorities with that bill lie.
  The American people have good reason to be worried about whom such an 
important bill would actually benefit. Just a few months ago the GOP 
passed a tax bill that skewed nearly all of the benefits to the wealthy 
and rich corporations leaving working class people behind. We can't 
allow this same approach to trickle into an infrastructure

[[Page H4789]]

bill that could skew all the benefits to billionaires and Wall Street 
banks looking to profit from the privatization of our infrastructure.
  We need to send a clear signal that our priority in repairing and 
upgrading our infrastructure is to not privatize these essential 
resources to enrich a lucky few; but instead will prioritize creating 
millions of living-wage jobs without selling off our roads and bridges 
to private investors. Mr. Speaker, here is the Republicans' chance to 
prove that they stand with hardworking Americans in fixing our Nation's 
infrastructure and not with billionaires, Wall Street banks, and 
foreign investors.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lieu's resolution, H. 
Con. Res. 63, which outlines priorities for efforts to enact a bold 
jobs and infrastructure package that benefits all Americans, not just 
billionaires.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding.
  Since the beginning of this Congress, we have had more infrastructure 
weeks than I can count, but we have yet to take up a comprehensive 
infrastructure bill. America desperately needs that.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers has estimated that for the 
next 10 years, we need $4.6 trillion of infrastructure funding just to 
keep pace. Over $2 trillion of that is not funded.
  So, for example, 53 percent of our public schools need funding to 
make repairs. More than 18 million Americans drink from water systems 
that fail to meet Federal lead tests. Forty percent of rural America 
and those on tribal lands lack broadband access.
  The President has designated week after week as Infrastructure Week, 
but this House majority has yet to consider a serious infrastructure 
proposal. When it comes to infrastructure, the President and this GOP 
majority has been all talk, no action. America deserves better. We have 
to fix our roads and highways, water infrastructure, schools, transit 
systems, and VA facilities. We have to have key principles for this 
infrastructure.
  First, we have to create millions of new jobs through investments in 
21st century projects. We also need to emphasize public investment over 
corporate giveaways and the selling of public goods. We need to embrace 
21st century clean energy jobs, including expanding solar and wind 
power, promoting energy efficiency, and modernizing the energy grid.
  We also need to ensure that investments are not paid for at the 
expense of Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. We need to not 
weaken or repeal existing environmental laws.
  H. Con. Res. 63, which embodies all of these principles, is supported 
by more than one-third of the House, with 157 cosponsors. We need to 
bring this proposal up rather than considering partisan appropriations 
bill that cut funding for renewable energy and energy efficiency and 
repeal protections that keep our waterways clean without offering a 
meaningful opportunity for debate.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I support the underlying water resources 
development legislation.
  In communities across the country, our infrastructure is falling 
apart, as colleagues on both sides of the aisle have pointed out. This 
is evident in the state of our Nation's dams. In communities like 
Waterbury, Vermont, dams are rapidly aging and the risk of breach 
continues to grow.
  In 2016, Congress took a very positive step to address this issue 
with the passage of the WIIN Act. Section 1177 of the WIIN Act 
authorized funding for the Army Corps to rehabilitate some of the 
Nation's oldest Corps-constructed dams that are classified as high 
hazard potential. As you know, the failure of a dam that is so 
classified is anticipated to cause the loss of life.
  While section 1177 was a positive start, its limited authorization 
and per project cap have hindered its effectiveness. To that end, I 
want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their 
willingness to work with me to address this matter.
  Section 105 of the legislation before us addresses these shortcomings 
by increasing the provisions in authorization and giving dams greater 
authority to accrue Federal funds over multiple years.
  The benefits of these changes to communities like Waterbury, Vermont 
are very clear. In 2011, Mr. Speaker, Waterbury suffered a devastating 
flood during Hurricane Irene. Despite the damage that the village 
suffered--totally flooded--the flooding in Waterbury would have been 
far more catastrophic if it weren't for the Corps-built Waterbury Dam, 
a 1930s-era construction in need of significant repair. Section 105 
will give the Corps the tools it needs to get work done rehabbing high-
hazard dams like Waterbury across the country.
  Both parties agree we need to improve our infrastructure. This bill 
will take important steps to do that and address some of our most 
outdated, hazardous dams in this country. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the words of my friend from Vermont. He is absolutely 
right. Fiscal conservatives, as a rule, are out there trying to save 
money. Occasionally, we find ourselves in those spaces where we end up 
being penny wise and pound foolish.
  The flood mitigation projects that my friend from Vermont referenced 
saved countless dollars, but, more importantly, countless lives. As 
some of these aging infrastructure projects look to be on the brink of 
failure, the time to act is now, not later.
  I am glad to see that we were able to come together to invest needed 
resources today in a water resources development bill so that we are 
not spending dollars tomorrow in a disaster relief bill. This is the 
right time to do it, and I appreciate my friend from Vermont making 
that point.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from 
Georgia how many more speakers he has on his side?
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend that I am prepared 
to close when he is.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that this is the most closed 
Congress in the history of the United States, I believe in giving 
credit where credit is due. This WRDA bill is a bill that is the 
product of a bipartisan process. I applaud the chairman, Mr. Shuster, 
and the Ranking Democrat, Mr. DeFazio, on working together, and all the 
members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure coming 
together to try to come to an accommodation that resulted in this bill.

  I regret very much that, despite their good work, in some backroom in 
the Rules Committee somewhere, the majority decided to rip out a 
bipartisan provision that the chairman and ranking member had agreed 
on. Then, making that even worse, the chairman and the ranking member 
had an amendment to try to at least have a debate on the floor and let 
the Members decide that issue, but the Rules Committee decided not to 
make that in order as well. Anyway, I don't want to be too picky. 
Overall, the WRDA bill is good. It will get a bipartisan vote.
  Of the three appropriations bills--this new approach where we bunch 
everything together so we don't have a lot of time to talk about them--
two of the appropriations bills are fine. There would be, I think, a 
pretty big bipartisan vote. The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill 
would pass with a strong bipartisan vote. I think that is a good thing. 
The Military Construction-VA bill would pass with a strong bipartisan 
vote. That is a good thing. But

[[Page H4790]]

my friends are allergic to bipartisanship.
  So, what they have to say is: You know what? Yeah, that is 
bipartisan, that is bipartisan, but we are going to bunch it in with a 
bill that is extremely partisan, that is filled with these horrific 
anti-environmental riders in it. If you want the good stuff, you have 
got to take this awful stuff as well.
  We are not going to do that. You are not going to have a bipartisan 
vote. I think if we were running this House, we would prefer to see a 
bipartisan vote than simply a partisan vote on everything.
  If this is the beginning of an appropriations process that you are 
going to employ throughout the remaining time, I worry about how this 
will all end up. My guess is, it will be what it usually is: this 
massive, gigantic mess at the end where deals are struck behind closed 
doors and things are put together, and we get a vote on one big, 
massive bill, take it or leave it. And then we will find out what is in 
it weeks and months later.
  I think that we are at a point where we have to really decide how 
this House should be run. I would just respectfully say to my 
Republican friends that this is not the way we should do the 
appropriations process. In general, this is not the way we should run 
the House. We ought to be debating appropriations bills one at a time. 
We ought to be encouraging bipartisanship, not trying to make it 
impossible. We have to be more accommodating.
  It shouldn't be a proud day for the majority to be able to break 
their own record of being the most closed Congress in the history of 
the United States. That is not the way this place is supposed to run. I 
think it has become too convenient for my Republican friends to run it 
in a way where they just put bills on the floor and say: Take it or 
leave it, my way or the highway.
  I guarantee you, if you are more accommodating, if you are more open, 
you will have more bipartisan votes. You will have less rancor in this 
Chamber. Maybe people will actually like Congress better if they see us 
working together.
  So I regret very much that I think my words are falling on deaf ears, 
but it really is disappointing and I think it is a disservice to the 
institution.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we 
can bring up Mr. Lieu's bill. If that doesn't pass, I would urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This is not the kind of process 
we want to see move forward on appropriations. I think this is the only 
opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to be able to express that, 
by voting ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, first things first. I mentioned earlier I don't think 
any of these bills are perfect bills; I just think they are the best we 
were able to work out together.
  I do want to mention that in the Rules Committee report in the 
summary of Mr. Nolan's amendment, we did describe that amendment 
incorrectly. We have now corrected that for the record, that has been 
submitted, but I just want to highlight that for the purposes of 
transparency.
  I think my friend from Massachusetts is exactly right, Mr. Speaker. 
It is time for us to decide how we want to run this institution. I 
don't question his numbers. He is very good. When he says this is the 
most closed Congress in American history, I am sure he has some set of 
numbers that backs up that attestation.
  But what I know is, when I was running for Congress and Democrats 
were leading this institution at the time, for the entire cycle that I 
was running, Democrats allowed less than 1,000 amendments totally for 
the entire session of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress, we have considered more than 1,000 
amendments before the month of May got out. We haven't even gotten into 
the appropriations cycle yet. That doesn't include the 30 amendments 
made in order on the appropriations bill today. It doesn't include the 
50-plus amendments made in order on WRDA today.
  We have already done more to allow Members to be heard in this 
Congress than was happening when the other side led this institution. I 
don't think that should be the measure of success, Mr. Speaker. I don't 
think that should be the measure of success. My friend from 
Massachusetts was right when he said we are going to get bigger votes 
and better votes when we bring better bills and a better process to the 
House floor.
  Let me tell you what I have brought today, Mr. Speaker. I will tell 
you what I brought today. I brought a bill that passed this House 
unanimously before it went to the Senate to be passed unanimously after 
a few amendments--and I brought it back here so that we can again pass 
it unanimously--a bill to protect communities, to empower law 
enforcement to fight gang violence on the front lines. I want to send 
that bill to the President, Mr. Speaker. And if we pass this rule 
today, we will be able to send that unanimously agreed-upon legislation 
to the President. That is in this rule.

  Also in this rule is the Water Resources Development Act, which 
passed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unanimously. 
Unanimously. Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, everyone 
working together to bring a bill out of committee. We brought it out of 
committee unanimously.
  The Rules Committee still made another 50 amendments in order in case 
folks want to improve upon it--50-plus--but we made those amendments in 
order to a bill that had already been agreed upon unanimously.
  What else does this rule do?
  It brings a third piece of legislation to the floor as a part of our 
appropriations package, the legislative branch appropriations bill, 
which passed out of committee how, Mr. Speaker? Unanimously, 
Republicans and Democrats working together to bring that bill out of 
committee.
  We include the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill in this 
package, Mr. Speaker. It came out of committee how? Don't tell me.
  Unanimously, as Republicans and Democrats came together to move that 
legislation forward.

                              {time}  1315

  And then we have a fifth part of this package, the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill, which I confess--I want to be clear; I want to be 
transparent--did not pass unanimously. It just received a simple 
bipartisan vote to come out of committee.
  So I challenge my colleagues who want a better process, who want to 
see better bills come to the floor. We are already making more 
amendments in order than my friends on the other side ever dreamed of 
doing. We are already bringing bills to the floor that have passed in a 
collaborative, in fact, unanimous way.
  If Members support this rule, they will be supporting five things, 
four of them that passed unanimously, and one that passed with a 
bipartisan vote. Is that going to get everybody what they want here 
today? I doubt it. It is a tall order, but is it worth supporting? Is 
it worth saying it is a step in the right direction? Is it worth 
celebrating because you know it could have gone a different way, but we 
committed ourselves to the excellence that we have here? It is.
  I will finish where I began, Mr. Speaker. I am proud to be down here 
carrying this rule today. I am the luckiest guy in the world to be able 
to come down here and talk about it, because folks don't get to hear 
it, they don't get to read about it, they don't get that around the 
water cooler back home, Mr. Speaker, that we are working together; that 
we are working together not only on the easy problems, but on the hard 
problems; that we are doing things here together that we have not done 
before, but we are doing them now because we have serious men and women 
on both sides of the aisle who want to make it happen.
  Support this rule. Support this rule. Let's show the American people 
the work product that has gone into this legislation: the rule and 
those five underlying provisions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee report (H. Rept. 115-
711) to accompany House Resolution 918 included an incorrect amendment 
description of amendment No. 14 offered by Representative Nolan of 
Minnesota.

[[Page H4791]]

  The correct amendment description should read:
  Expresses the sense of Congress that the construction of a new lock 
at the Soo Locks at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, is vital to our 
national economy, national security, and national need for new critical 
infrastructure.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee report (H. Rept. 115-
711) to accompany House Resolution 918 should have included in its 
waiver of all points of order against amendments to H.R. 8 a disclosure 
of following violation:
  Clause 9 of rule XXI, which requires a list of all earmarks, limited 
tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits contained in an amendment to a 
bill or joint resolution to be offered at the outset of its 
consideration for amendment by a member of a committee of initial 
referral as designated in a report of the Committee on Rules to 
accompany a resolution, or a certification that the amendment does not 
contain any of those items. While a statement has not yet been printed 
in the Congressional Record for amendment No. 1 offered by Rep. 
Shuster, it is important to note that Rep. Shuster filed the required 
earmark statement on June 6, 2018, prior to floor consideration of the 
bill and amendment.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 918 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. 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 concurrent 
     resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) supporting efforts to enact a 
     bold jobs and infrastructure package that benefits all 
     Americans, not just billionaires. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the concurrent resolution 
     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 
     concurrent resolution shall be considered for amendment under 
     the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions 
     in the concurrent resolution are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution to 
     the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution and preamble thereto to adoption 
     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 
     concurrent resolution, 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 
     concurrent resolution.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Con. Res 63.
                                  ____


        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 (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on 
ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adopting the resolution, if ordered; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 176, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 234]

                               YEAS--224

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

[[Page H4792]]


  


                               NAYS--176

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     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.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     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
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Beatty
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Brooks (AL)
     Cardenas
     Cohen
     Davis, Rodney
     Ellison
     Fortenberry
     Gomez
     Gutierrez
     Hunter
     Lee
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     McNerney
     Noem
     Palazzo
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Polis
     Roby
     Rohrabacher
     Sanchez
     Sherman
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1344

  Mr. PAYNE, Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, Messrs. RUSH, and COSTA changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DeSANTIS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 
No. 234.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 223, 
noes 175, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 235]

                               AYES--223

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brat
     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
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     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--175

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     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.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     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
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McEachin
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     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
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Beatty
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks (AL)
     Cardenas
     Ellison
     Fortenberry
     Gomez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hunter
     Lee
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     McCollum
     McNerney
     Noem
     Palazzo
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pittenger
     Polis
     Roby
     Rohrabacher
     Sanchez
     Sherman
     Walz
     Waters, Maxine
     Wilson (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1350

  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.

                          ____________________