[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 94 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4862-H4869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5895, ENERGY AND WATER
DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019, AND
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3, SPENDING CUTS TO EXPIRED AND
UNNECESSARY PROGRAMS ACT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 923 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 923
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for further
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 further amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole. 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 available pro forma
amendments described in section 4 of House Resolution 918.
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and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any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 amendments described in section 4 of House Resolution
918, 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 and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3) to rescind
certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special
messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on May
8, 2018, in accordance with title X of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act 1974. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment
printed in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 3. The provisions of section 1017 of the Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 shall not apply to a bill or joint
resolution introduced with respect to the special message
transmitted under section 1012 of that Act on May 8, 2018.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres),
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. BURGESS. 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 Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
House Resolution 923 provides for the consideration of two important
bills related to Federal spending of taxpayer dollars.
The first, H.R. 5895, the combined appropriations bill, containing
three individual fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water, Legislative Branch,
and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bills, provides the
annual funding for these Federal departments.
The second bill, H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary
Programs Act, is a critical bill to honor the House Republicans'
commitment to eliminating wasteful Federal spending.
The resolution before us this afternoon provides for a structured
rule for H.R. 5895. Yesterday, the House passed the first rule
pertaining to this bill, providing for 1 hour of general debate on the
measure. Today's rule makes in order 40 amendments offered by both
Democrats and Republicans.
House Resolution 923 also provides a closed rule for H.R. 3, the
rescissions package, but does execute Leader McCarthy's amendment which
incorporates President Trump's revised and updated spending proposal.
One hour of debate time for H.R. 3 is provided, divided and
controlled equally by the majority leader and the minority leader or
their respective designees.
Finally, the rule provides the minority the customary motion to
recommit on both pieces of legislation under consideration.
H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2019, funds a
net total of $144 billion in base discretionary spending, $33 billion
for defense, and $112 billion for nondefense purposes. The totals
reflect the amount specified in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.
Division A of the appropriations package funds the Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act at nearly $45
billion,
[[Page H4863]]
providing for national security and energy and water infrastructure
investments.
The bill would increase Federal investments in nuclear security by
$600 million above fiscal year 2018, then totaling more than $15
billion.
As President Trump has repeatedly stated, our Nation must modernize
its aging nuclear forces. They are the centerpiece of our deterrent
strategy, and we cannot allow them to degrade to a point where they
become functionally useless.
To prevent this outcome, nuclear weapons activities, especially Navy
nuclear reactors, all continue to receive funding. Congress must not
leave the United States unprepared while our adversaries continue to
advance their own nuclear weapons programs.
Division A also improves the security of our energy infrastructure.
Most Americans take for granted the ability to easily access
electricity, but that convenience is tenuous. The electric grid is
massive, it is complex, and it is vulnerable to cyber and physical
attacks. These threats have become increasingly likely as more
operations go online or are connected to a network which is not secure.
This bill appropriates $117 million to ensure that our energy
infrastructure operators have the resources they need to develop these
defenses.
{time} 1245
Additionally, the bill supports the completion of the Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository, helping to ease the risk and burden of
storing nuclear waste in temporary storage sites across the country.
In 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act gave the Department
of Energy authority to regulate incandescent light bulbs through the
law's excessive energy efficiency standards, effectively killing free
market competition.
Therefore, I submitted an amendment that would prohibit the use of
Federal funds to carry out these onerous enforcement standards. This
amendment has been included in the Energy and Water Development
appropriations bill every fiscal year since 2011, and I look forward to
continued consumer choice in this market.
Division A includes the United States Army Corps of Engineers. In
Texas' 26th Congressional District that I represent, the Army Corps has
been instrumental in ensuring the thorough maintenance, repair, and
safety of Lake Lewisville Dam, which sustained damage due to heavy
rains in the north Texas area in 2015.
This is just one example of the important work the Army Corps
performs throughout the United States, and the bill increases funding
of the agency to more than $7 billion for fiscal year 2019.
The bill also repeals the massive overreach of Federal authority
known as the waters of the United States rule, promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers. This rule changed the definition of navigable waters subject
to Federal regulation under the Clean Water Act, placing significant
costs on property owners.
Last, the bill prohibits the use of nuclear nonproliferation projects
in Russia without certain notifications from the Secretary of Energy.
Division B appropriates $3.8 billion for the legislative branch. This
encompasses the House of Representatives and joint operations with the
Senate.
The House of Representatives is funded at $1.2 billion, which is $25
million below the President's budget request. Funding also supports
Capitol security and police forces, services for visitors, and Capitol
operations and maintenance.
The Capitol Police are funded at $456 million, an increase of $30
million above fiscal year 2018. Last year, we learned just how vital
the Capitol Police are when they responded to and stopped a shooter who
opened fire at a congressional baseball game practice.
The bravery and skill demonstrated by those agents are what allows
Members of Congress, our staff, our support personnel, and visitors to
go to work or visit the Capitol complex every day without fear. They
deserve our full support.
The Office of Compliance is appropriated over $5 million for employee
and Member workplace rights training. This funding will also support a
dispute resolution process that is fair and accessible for all.
The bill also includes almost $580 million for the Government
Accountability Office so that it may continue its vital work of
oversight and reporting on how Federal programs are using taxpayer
dollars.
Two important things that the bill does not fund are a cost-of-living
increase for Members of Congress and allowances for former Speakers of
the House.
Division C of the appropriations package provides over $96 billion in
discretionary funding for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
an increase of more than $4 billion over fiscal year 2018.
Nearly all of the increase in funding goes toward supporting the
efforts and the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robust
funding for Veterans Affairs will ensure that those who have served our
country have access to quality services.
This bill includes a total of $194 billion in discretionary and
mandatory funding for Veterans Affairs, which is $9 billion more than
fiscal year 2018.
Importantly, this bill provides more than $71 billion for Veterans
Affairs medical care and more than $1 billion in funding for the
Department of Veterans Affairs to deploy a new electronic health
records system that aligns with the Department of Defense.
Mr. Speaker, this is something that we have been promised since 2006.
This will allow our veterans an easier transition into the Veterans
Affairs system than they experience today.
The bill also includes funding for reducing the disability claims
backlog so that veterans will receive more timely compensation.
Yesterday, the VA MISSION Act was signed into law. American veterans
deserve the best possible care, and this bill gives the Department of
Veterans Affairs the resources to work towards providing that care for
the 7 million patients who are expected to receive Veterans Affairs
treatment in fiscal year 2019.
Additionally, this bill funds construction, operation, and
maintenance of housing for our troops and medical and education
facilities at over $10 billion.
This is the first step toward funding the government and its
essential programs for fiscal year 2019. This year, Congress will do
its job to ensure smart, efficient, and appropriate use of taxpayer
dollars.
H.R. 3, the second bill contained in today's rule, is the rescissions
package to cut stagnant and unused prior-year Federal funding.
President Trump submitted and recently revised a proposal to rescind
approximately $14.5 billion of budget authority, affecting 15 Federal
departments and agencies. These include unobligated balances from the
Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan
Program and the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program; the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's capital fund; the
Department of Justice's Assets Forfeiture Fund; the Department of
State's Complex Crisis Fund; and unnecessary funding for the Millennium
Challenge Corporation, among other things.
President Trump recently revised his request to withdraw the proposed
rescission of emergency Ebola funds as well as supplemental
appropriations for Superstorm Sandy recovery and to decrease proposed
rescissions to Housing and Urban Development's capital fund and
Treasury's capital management fund.
Two provisions related to the Children's Health Insurance Program
should be noted.
The first rescinds over $5 billion that was included in the Medicare
Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 that supplements the fiscal
year 2017 allotments to States. This was in addition to the annual
Children's Health Insurance Program appropriation to reimburse States
for Children's Health Insurance Program expenses. The remaining funds
are no longer needed.
The second provision rescinds almost $2 billion made available to the
Children's Health Insurance Program contingency fund, which is used to
provide payments to States that have funding shortfalls. The Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services currently does
[[Page H4864]]
not expect any State to need a payment from the contingency fund during
the current fiscal year.
It is important that the American people understand that these
Children's Health Insurance Program rescissions will have no impact on
the current Children's Health Insurance Program.
Early this year, Republicans passed and signed into law the longest
and most generous extension to the Children's Health Insurance Program
in its 20-year history. When House Democrats were presented this
opportunity, they voted against it not once but twice.
Mr. Speaker, when Federal funds are no longer needed in an agency or
have not been obligated, Congress should do the right thing and use
these taxpayer dollars to reduce the deficit.
I support passage of the rule to allow debate on these important
priorities. I urge Members to support today's rule and both underlying
bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30
minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this rule makes 39 amendments in order to the
appropriations bill we have been considering this week.
Unfortunately, this appropriations package is made up of three
individual appropriations bills. Also, in what is a surprise to us in
the minority, this rule also includes a surprising $15 billion in
rescissions--cuts--to programs our communities depend on.
Why aren't we given the opportunity to bring up these bills
individually? Considering that nearly 200 amendments were offered to
this package while many of us were working in our districts, it is
obvious to me that these bills would have benefited from a longer
debate.
This rule makes in order 39 amendments to the underlying package,
which includes H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019; H.R. 5894, the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act of 2019; and H.R. 5786, the Military Construction,
Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2019.
However, 59 additional amendments will not be given an opportunity to
be heard, including bipartisan amendments like the Cicilline-Poliquin
amendment to prohibit oil drilling on the Atlantic Outer Continental
Shelf or the Foster-Hultgren amendment to increase funding for the
Department of Energy's Office of Science or the Issa-Roybal-Allard
amendment to support programs that improve veteran access to care at
qualified health centers. Don't these distinguished Members of this
body deserve to have their amendments discussed, debated, and voted on?
This rule also makes in order H.R. 3, the GOP rescission package. Mr.
Speaker, this bill has not received a single hearing--not one. This was
a last-minute addition which gave no time for amendments to be
considered.
The closed rule, which is how the rescissions package comes to the
floor, pushes this Congress further into the record books as the most
closed Congress in history.
Before I speak more on that, I do want to take a brief moment to
highlight the bipartisan manner in which the appropriators acted in
crafting the Military Construction and Legislative Branch bills. This
is proof that, when this body wants to, we can work together and
produce legislation that results in broad, bipartisan consensus.
The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill provides a $4.17
billion increase to the servicemembers we represent--specifically, a
$3.9 billion increase to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Legislative Branch bill takes more steps we should have taken a
long time ago and provides additional resources for training and to
help with complaints on sexual harassment and violations of employee
rights. None of us here are immune to harassers, but at least this bill
moves us forward in addressing the bad behaviors of those who walk
among us.
This rule makes in order amendments to the Energy and Water
appropriations bill. However, this bill does not follow the same
bipartisan path. Instead, this bill is full of poison pill riders that
will ultimately make our time here a total waste, as those poison pill
riders mean that the Senate will ignore this package as it is written.
Incredibly, when most Americans are asking Congress to make
commonsense improvements to our Nation's gun laws, this bill goes in
the opposite direction. That is right. This Congress is finally acting
on guns--in a cowardly way, by expanding where guns can be brought onto
Federal lands, ignoring the cries and the calls from our children--our
children who are being murdered in their classrooms, our constituents
who are being murdered in movie theaters, our constituents who are
being murdered in concert halls in Las Vegas, Nevada, where people go
to get married, where people go to have fun, and, yes, they make babies
sometimes in Vegas too. But yet we are ignoring their calls for help.
{time} 1300
It is amazing that we can go on months without meaningful reforms on
gun violence and now we take up a giant spending package that forces
Members to vote on yet another expansion of gun access. What are we
trying to do?
Again, a cowardice act to expand the use of weapons in our Federal
lands. For what? So we can go into the dens of bears and kill them--the
momma bears and the baby bears--while they are sleeping?
That is what we are doing in this Congress.
Perhaps that wouldn't be such a problem if we had a single open rule
on the House floor that would allow the House to work its will on this
or any other issue Members have with portions of this legislation.
Finally, this rule makes in order H.R. 3, President Trump's and the
GOP's rescissions bill. As I mentioned before, this bill saw no
hearings. Zero.
But perhaps just as troubling was Ranking Member Lowey's remarks in
our Rules Committee hearing last night about how the minority wasn't
even consulted prior to this bill coming to the floor, ignoring the
thousands of constituents that we represent. So, not only has this bill
skipped the normal appropriations process, Democrats have not been
given an opportunity to add the voice of their constituents.
Make no mistake, this is a highly partisan bill which does not
reflect the House's will. Instead, this is what our constituents hate
the most: a Congress that is most dysfunctional.
This bill makes significant cuts to programs that create jobs, grow
our economy, and provide healthcare to millions of children in a
transparent attempt to appear fiscally conservative after passing a tax
bill that added $1.9 trillion to the deficit and gave most of its
benefit to the wealthiest among us.
If we want to rescind something to balance the deficit, how about we
start with the $1 trillion budget-busting tax bill that was passed for
the wealthy. That irresponsible law is now the cause of Medicare and
Social Security going bankrupt decades earlier.
This bill is a political gimmick to hide the Republican majority's
gross mismanagement of our Nation's long-term fiscal health. While the
GOP tax giveaway benefited the wealthiest among us, almost half of the
cuts in this rescissions package are to the Children's Health Insurance
Program. Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker: the Children's Health
Insurance Program.
We have $7 billion eliminated from CHIP. That is right. They didn't
blink an eye at a $2 trillion giveaway to the wealthy, but yet they are
squeezing fractional savings from funds intended for children's health
insurance.
But that isn't the end of it. So that corporations and millionaires
can have a tax break, the House majority has decided to make a
collection of cuts that will impact every community: Cuts to economic
development; cuts to the Forest Service while the West of America is
burning; cuts to Indian housing programs, cuts to foreign assistance;
cuts to transportation while our infrastructure is crumbling; cuts to
public housing while the growing number of Americans grow homeless;
cuts to conservation; and cuts to advanced technology vehicle loans.
What is it that you want to do? Do you want to take us back to the
time of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble?
[[Page H4865]]
I know that my Republican colleagues will say that they aren't cuts
because the funding can't be used, but no Federal agencies were asked
if they needed a waiver to utilize this funding where they need it the
most. I doubt that my colleagues will say they couldn't use this in
their communities.
Well, let me put these cuts in the voice of the Great Gazoo: those
cuts are dumb and dumber cuts.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I must strongly oppose this rule, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, February 9 of this year, the House of Representatives
passed the most generous extension of the Children's Health Insurance
Program since its inception in 1996. The gentlewoman from California
voted against that extension.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Gibbs), a valuable member of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee and the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 5895
that provides essential protections for the current and future health
of Lake Erie.
It prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from dumping dredged sediment
from the Cuyahoga River in the lake without the approval of the State
of Ohio. This dredge sediment can contain harmful contaminants,
potentially increasing the risk of polluted fish and wildlife.
Lake Erie is one of Ohio's most precious and important natural
resources. It would be irresponsible to reverse the environmental gains
we have recently made with the lake, which is why this provision is so
important.
Additionally, this bill includes a provision to expand the ability of
law-abiding citizens to possess a firearm on Army Corps of Engineers
land, so long as they are legally permitted to carry a firearm and are
in full compliance with State law and as they are allowed to do on
other Federal parks and Federal lands. This provision merely brings the
Army Corps recreational property in line with the rules of land owned
by the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Finally, this bill includes a full congressional repeal of the
harmful Obama-era WOTUS rule, waters of the United States, an executive
overreach that expanded Federal jurisdiction beyond ``navigable
waters.'' These provisions are important in ensuring the Federal
Government does not impose its will or expand its authority at the
expense of States or individuals.
I encourage my colleagues to support this, and I want to commend the
chairmen of these committees for the work they have done in the
rescissions package in this bill and the Energy and Water bill to move
this country forward.
I would also note, Mr. Speaker, historically, if you look back in the
past 20 or 30 years in past administrations, both Republican and
Democratic, rescissions used to be common practice to claw back money
that was never spent or could no longer be spent and bring it back to
the Treasury and let the Congress re-appropriate the money as they deem
fit.
I encourage my colleagues to support this rule.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, does this Republican majority have amnesia? Did they
forget how we got here?
Congressional Republicans blew a nearly $2 trillion hole in the
deficit by giving tax cuts to the wealthy and large corporations. That
is trillion with a T. Now they are acting like they are great deficit
hawks for bringing forward a bill that rescinds $15 billion in Federal
spending. That is billion with a B. It is a tiny fraction of the
trillions of dollars they spent on tax cuts.
You don't have to be some great scholar to see this disparity. It is
right here on this chart. This really big red bar, Mr. Speaker, that
plunges down to nearly $2 trillion represents the impact of the
Republican tax bill on the deficit. It is actually $1.9 trillion. It is
not good. That really, really, really tiny small bar on the right
represents the so-called ``savings'' that this bill will provide.
For those in the gallery, you are going to need binoculars to see
that line. To my Republican colleagues, I am happy to lend you my
bifocals so you can see how inconsequential this rescission package is
in terms of dealing with our deficit.
Now, don't get me wrong, $15 million is a lot of money, but in the
context of what this Republican House has done to our deficit--blowing
a hole in it to give tax cuts to the megarich--in that context, it
isn't even a down payment on fixing the deficit.
This bill isn't the result of some great process. Mr. Speaker, there
was no process. There was no hearing on the bill. The Appropriations
Committee didn't go over these proposed cuts one by one, weighing
whether they made sense or not.
This is the result of the whims of President Trump. He seems to
change his mind about as often as he logs on to Twitter. How else can
the majority explain slashing funds to fight Ebola the same day there
is an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
You cannot make this stuff up.
It took language in a manager's amendment to reverse this, just like
the majority was forced to reverse cuts to funds designed to help New
York and New Jersey recover from Superstorm Sandy. Perhaps if you had a
hearing and you listened to Members of Congress, you listened to the
committees of jurisdiction, you might avoid these embarrassments.
This bill is also being considered under yet another record-breaking
closed rule. That means no Member can offer an amendment on the floor
to approve it.
Last month, Republicans officially turned this Congress into the most
closed Congress in history. It was only May. We still have 6 months to
go before the end of this Congress. Apparently, there is no end in
sight for the majority's restrictive process. It would make Vladimir
Putin jealous. This is not a process to be proud of. This is a process
the Republicans should be ashamed of.
The cuts in this bill aren't harmless. They will hurt real people.
Almost half the cuts in this package are to the Children's Health
Insurance Program. This bill also hurts farmers by cutting funding they
need to carry out important conservation programs.
This bill cuts funding for the Economic Development Administration,
an agency focused on economic growth and private sector job creation,
at a time when they have a project backlog nationwide. In my own
congressional district, I have visited at least 10 high-quality
projects seeking investments from EDA. These projects, and countless
others all across the country, are now in jeopardy if this rescissions
package becomes law.
These are not unnecessary programs, as the bill's title suggests.
This funding was appropriated under the FY 2017 omnibus negotiated over
just a year ago. Both parties agreed to it. The President signed it
into law. Now, President Trump has suddenly changed his mind. Maybe it
was something he saw on Fox News, since he takes most of his marching
orders from them.
After spending nearly $2 trillion on tax cuts for the superrich and
blowing up the deficit, the majority's bill is like putting a Band-Aid
on a gaping wound.
Republicans are trying to trick the American people into thinking
that somehow they care about fiscal responsibility. Well, they are not
fooling anyone.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rouzer). The Chair would remind Members
to refrain from references to occupants of the gallery.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that as of June 7 of this
year, Republicans in the 115th Congress have provided consideration for
over 1,200 amendments on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, during the entirety of the 111th Congress, when Speaker
Pelosi was Speaker, the Democrats allowed less than 1,000 amendments to
be considered on the floor. Their majority blocked nearly 3,000
amendments that year in Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
[[Page H4866]]
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
I would like to recognize that on February 9 of this year, the most
generous extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program--for 10
years' time--was passed by the House and eventually signed into law.
The gentleman from Massachusetts fought against that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Knight).
{time} 1315
Mr. KNIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for the inclusion of
language in the E&W report that would launch a new initiative at the
Department of Energy to aggressively drive down costs and improve the
performance of grid-scale energy storage technologies.
This report language is similar to the BEST Act, which I sponsored
and of which the ranking member is a cosponsor. The BEST Act is a
bipartisan authorization bill that directs the Secretary of Energy to
establish a moonshot goal of three demonstrations of grid-scale battery
storage that will meet aggressive commercialization targets for cost,
performance, and durability.
This concept is modeled after the success of the DOE's SunShot
Initiative, which brought down the cost of solar energy by 75 percent
in less than 5 years.
One of the biggest challenges to greater incorporation of new energy
sources into the power grid is the lack of cost-competitive grid-scale
solutions. Intermittent energy sources cannot reach their potential
without commercially viable storage facilities. We all know this.
Much of the energy we produce is lost, diminishing utility
productivity. While the DOE has issued grants to pursue better battery
storage, funding has been too dispersed to produce the breakthroughs
needed to transform our electricity grid. This initiative will leverage
work currently being done in the Office of Science to set a moonshot
goal for energy storage technology.
In a further sign of the merit of these demonstrations, the Senate
E&W bill also includes very similar report language.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to allow the rewriting
of history. The majority has blocked over 2,000 amendments, and it is
only June.
Mr. Speaker, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act would shortchange our veterans by subjecting funding
for their healthcare programs to onerous budget restraints. This would
force funding for veterans healthcare to compete with other important
veterans programs.
Therefore, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to include Representative Lamb's legislation,
H.R. 5805, to fix the VA Choice budget shortfall and Representative
Carter's amendment to MILCON-VA which includes more funds for vital
veteran healthcare initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Lamb) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. LAMB. Mr. Speaker, I rise today so that we can finish the work
that we started with the VA MISSION Act.
Just yesterday, the President signed the VA MISSION Act into law, and
it is a good bill. But the words on that piece of paper and his
signature, Mr. Speaker, are not what takes care of our veterans. It is
the doctors and nurses in our VA facilitates who do that. The VA
MISSION Act gives us a chance to make their jobs easier and let them do
it better.
But we have to be honest about the fact that it also poses serious
risks because of these strict budget caps. These budget caps were in
place, Mr. Speaker, before we ever did the VA MISSION Act. I don't know
if they were put in place because people had lost faith in the VA, but
I recently visited two VA hospitals in the Pittsburgh area and came
away with a renewed faith in what the VA can do.
I met a man who was a Vietnam veteran, wheelchair-bound, who has
lived in the VA hospital for 3 years. If things were as bad as its
critics say, you might expect a man like that to be downtrodden or
upset with the VA. Instead, when I asked him how he was feeling, tears
came to his eyes and his voice choked with emotion as he described for
me the way that the director of that hospital comes to mass with him
every morning and asks about his family.
We had that conversation in a kitchen built inside that hospital that
looks like the kitchen in any nice home. The nurses bring in food of
their own to cook for the patients of theirs. It operates like a real
family.
This is what it looks like, Mr. Speaker, when we keep our promises to
our veterans and, more accurately, when our doctors and nurses keep
that promise on our behalf.
But all of this is at risk if we do not finish what we started with
the VA MISSION Act. If we do nothing, the money that we have
appropriated for the Veterans Choice Program will bust the strict
budget caps that VA is under, and that will trigger automatic,
indiscriminate cuts across the board.
Mr. Speaker, that man asked me for one thing. He said that next year
on Memorial Day he was hoping that they could have a cookout and that I
would come back and have a hot dog with him.
When that happens 1 year from now, Mr. Speaker, that same VA hospital
may very well be under the strict budget cuts. Something like a cookout
would be seen as an extravagance if you are getting 25 percent, 30
percent cuts across the board. And we will be responsible for that, Mr.
Speaker. That is the only thing that man asked for.
He has been cared for. We have gotten him the care he deserves. We
need to ensure that for the next generation. We can fix that today. We
can exempt the new money in the VA MISSION Act from the strict budget
caps by voting ``no'' on the previous question so that my bill, H.R.
5805, can be made in order.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's service to our
country. I would point out that I worked as a physician in a VA
facility in the 1970s, and I am well aware of the good work that the
doctors and nurses in VA facilities provide.
I would like to point out that, in the Statement of Administration
Policy, the administration expected the MISSION Act to be in place by
the beginning of fiscal year 2018. Do remember that this was one of the
promises that then-candidate Trump promised to the Nation, that he
would make the funding of the veterans programs a priority, and I
believe he has done that.
Continuing to quote from the administration: ``The delay in enacting
the MISSION Act's new community care program increases the requirements
to continue the VA's current traditional community care program by an
additional $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2019.''
Here is the important point: ``The administration looks forward to
working with Congress to secure this funding within the existing
nondefense discretionary cap.''
I think it is fair to say there is more to come.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text
of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Comer). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 3 as
well as the underlying bill. As a member of the House Appropriations
Committee, I do not believe we should be retroactively taking back
already approved funding to pay for tax cuts to corporations.
There are countless ludicrous provisions in this bill to cut rural
housing, conservation, and other programs that support communities,
farmers, and those in need. I would like to focus on one provision in
H.R. 3 that is particularly upsetting because it would rescind over $14
million from USDA's Value Added Producer Grant program, one of the only
USDA grants that go directly to farmers' pockets.
[[Page H4867]]
Let me be absolutely clear. Despite what the administration has said,
these are funds that farmers have already applied for. Those
applications were already under review by the USDA when the rescission
package was introduced. Projects are ready to go and jobs are waiting
to be created with this funding.
It makes me very angry to see that the administration's rescission
proposal describes these grants as wasteful and specifically identifies
a chocolate-covered peanut project as an example of alleged wasteful
spending.
This is not about chocolate-covered peanuts. This is about helping
farmers diversify their businesses and providing consumers with new
products on which they are willing to spend a little extra.
Farmers are facing very challenging economic times, and I think we
should be doing everything we can to support farmers in finding new
markets, whether that is by processing milk to make yogurt, making jam
from wild blueberries, or even coating peanuts in chocolate.
Ironically, on the same day that the administration released its
rescission proposal, the USDA's Economic Research Service released a
report on how successful VAPG has been. The report shows that
businesses that receive VAPG funding provide more jobs for their
communities and were less likely to fail than similar nonrecipient
businesses. VAPG works. In Maine and across the country, a little
support to farmers through VAPG can go a long way.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule for H.R. 3 as well as the
underlying bill.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland
Security Committee, I am opposing all of the bills under this rule,
including the underlying bill, but in particular H.R. 3, which is a
danger to childcare development, Pell grants, and election security,
meaning, Mr. Speaker, they are cutting those dollars.
But the main element of my opposition is the crisis on the border. I
want this House to recognize that you have individuals who have crossed
for humanitarian reasons who are being treated and violated like in a
third-world country that would be inhumane.
You have Guatemalans, some of whom now are facing the tragedy of the
volcano, coming who speak an indigenous language, and they are lumped
together 50, 100 at a time.
Their children are snatched away from them. This is a policy that is
going to be further funded by the rescissions in this bill. It is
imperative that anyone who has a humane bone in their body stand up
against ripping children away from individuals.
As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee
on the Judiciary, that was not the policy. The policy was for children
who came unaccompanied, not children with their parents.
In addition, you have children who have not seen their mothers--who
are 4 years old, who are infants--for weeks at a time and cannot speak
English.
Again, you have Guatemalans who are not speaking Spanish, English, or
a language that is interpreted in the courts. It is an indigenous
language. They do not know that you are ruling against them, as it
relates to their plea for asylum.
This bill and the rescissions will give more funding for those kinds
of inhumane deportation and more dollars to separate children from
their parents.
For God's sake, this is not America. We must stop it now. Oppose the
bill.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I will point out that one of the things that the
Military Construction and VA appropriation does fund is the
improvements to the VA Electronic Health Record. This is something that
has been sought by this Congress and previous administrations going
back to 2006. I am happy to say that in this appropriations bill it is
being taken care of.
Three administrations is too long for that to happen. I am grateful
for the focus that the administration put on this problem, and I am
grateful that they have finally gotten it solved.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have no doubt of the importance of the legislation this rule makes
in order. However, I struggle to believe that this is the most
important work we could be doing today.
Instead, perhaps we can fix the broken immigration laws that
President Trump has cited as his reason for separating families and
children on our Nation's border. Fear and intimidation are no way to
make policy. The Trump administration has picked the cruelest way to
punish those who are fleeing violence.
The result is broken families and lost children. Since October, more
than 700 children have been inhumanely separated from their parents.
More than 100 of these children are less than 4 years old.
Using family separation as a scare tactic to prevent families from
coming to this country will never work, and it is in the same cruel
mindset as using rape as a weapon of war. These families come here
looking for one thing: shelter. Punishing a mother by separating her
from her child is not only immoral; it is inhumane. It goes against the
fundamental human right of the family unit.
Separating them from their parents is simply anti-American. However,
for some reason, President Trump has repeatedly said that he is bound
by the law to rip these families apart.
{time} 1330
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California will state
her parliamentary inquiry.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, what is the law requiring the separation of
parents and children at the border?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not respond to inquiries
regarding the status of the law. That is a matter for debate.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the reason the Speaker can't answer
is that the law simply doesn't exist. However, this is the United
States Congress. We make the laws. But unfortunately, this isn't what
we are doing here. No. Instead, we are taking up a bill to put more
guns on public lands and cut funding for energy efficiency research.
For this reason and many other concerns I have with the number of
amendments which were not made in order, I must oppose this rule.
This Congress is now the most closed Congress in history. It is
forcing its Members to vote on bills which haven't been given a real
debate. It is clear the majority is attempting to rewrite history.
Mr. Speaker, Canada did not burn the White House. The American people
know better. None of the work we do today will undo their deficit-
busting bill, nor will it reunite the families the administration has
destroyed.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and
the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as of June 7, 2018, Republicans in the 115th Congress
have provided for consideration of over 1,200 amendments on the House
floor. Over 570 of those amendments have been proposed by Democrats,
480 proposed by Republicans, and 190 were bipartisan. That is 46
percent Democratic amendments, 39 percent Republican amendments, and 16
percent were bipartisan.
By contrast, during the entire 111th Congress, that was the last
Congress where Speaker Pelosi was the Speaker of the House, Democrats
were in the majority. During the entire 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi
allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be considered on the House floor,
and, in fact, the Democratic majority blocked 3,000 amendments, with
roughly 2,400 during, actually, the first session, the first year of
that Congress.
These numbers include measures where the summaries of amendments
submitted are publicly available, but at that time, due to the lack of
the majority's transparency, the number is likely much higher that were
blocked.
Now, look, Chairman Sessions of the Rules Committee has made it a
point
[[Page H4868]]
to ensure that every single Member has the opportunity to submit their
amendments and come to the Committee on Rules and share their thoughts
and concerns. And as the gentlewoman knows well, there is no clock in
the Rules Committee. Any Member can come and spend as much time with us
as they wish.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two
important pieces of legislation: H.R. 5895, the Energy and Water,
Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act of 2019, and H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired
and Unnecessary Programs Act. Both are responsible measures that take
seriously our responsibility to be vigilant stewards of the Federal
taxpayers' dollars.
I want to thank the President for his leadership in eliminating
unused and unnecessary funding from past years, a responsible approach
that until this President has been underutilized. I urge my colleagues
today to support the rules and the two underlying pieces of
legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Torres is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 923 Offered by Ms. Torres
In the first section, strike ``printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution'' and insert ``specified in section 4 of this
resolution, modified by adding at the end the text of H.R.
5805 as introduced,''.
Add at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in the first section is
as follows:
`Page 165, after line 14, insert the following:
Sec. 239. For an additional amount for the Department of
Veterans Affairs, $1,138,000,000 for the programs and
activities authorized in the VA MISSION Act of 2018 and the
amendments made by such Act, which shall be in addition to
amounts otherwise made available in this Act for such
purpose, of which--
(1) $600,000,000 shall become available for the Veterans
Community Care Program under section 1703 of title 38, United
States Code, as amended by the VA MISSION Act of 2018, on the
effective date specified in section 101(b) of such Act; and
(2) $253,000,000 shall be available for the Family
Caregivers Program under section 1720G of title 38, United
States Code, as amended by such Act:
Provided, That amounts made available under this section
shall remain available until September 30, 2020. ''.
____
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. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 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 227,
nays 185, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 240]
YEAS--227
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
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
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
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)
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
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
NAYS--185
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
[[Page H4869]]
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Beatty
Bilirakis
Boyle, Brendan F.
Carbajal
Davis, Danny
Flores
Fortenberry
Lynch
Noem
Palazzo
Poliquin
Polis
Thompson (MS)
Vargas
Walz
{time} 1357
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. ABRAHAM and Mrs. WALORSKI changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call No. 240.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 187, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 241]
AYES--225
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
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
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
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
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)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
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--187
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Beatty
Bilirakis
Boyle, Brendan F.
Carbajal
Davis, Danny
Flores
Fortenberry
Lynch
Noem
Palazzo
Polis
Rokita
Vargas
Walz
Wilson (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining.
{time} 1405
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.
____________________