[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.
____________________